David Huebert Report New Britannia Mill 2018-11-23

Appendix FAquatic Technical Data Report

Hudbay Minerals Inc.

Aquatic Environment Technical Data ReportNew Britannia MillProject number: 60567492

December 18, 2018


Aquatic Environment Technical Data Report New Britannia Mill

December 18, 2018

Prepared for: Hudbay Minerals Inc.

AECOM

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time

period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and

on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

AECOM: 2015-04-13 © 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Quality Information Report Prepared By:

David Huebert Senior Environmental Scientist

Report Reviewed By:

Clifton Samoiloff, B.Sc., EP (CEA)

Senior Scientist



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Prepared for: Hudbay Minerals Inc. Manitoba Business Unit PO Box 1500 1 Company Road Flin Flon, MB R8A 1N9

Prepared by: David Huebert Senior Environmental Scientist T: 604-444-6596 E: [email protected] AECOM Canada Ltd. 3292 Production Way Suite 330 Burnaby, BC V5A 4R4 Canada T: 604.444.6400 F: 604.294.8597 aecom.com

© 2018 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................ 13 2.2 Sediment ............................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................................ 15 2.4 Zooplankton ........................................................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.6 Fish Community ..................................................................................................................................... 16 2.7 Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 17

3. Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 3.1 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................ 20 3.1.1 Characterization of Surface Waters ....................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Depth Profiles in Lakes .......................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Sediment ............................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Sediment Characterization .................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Sediment Quality ................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................................ 26 3.4 Zooplankton ........................................................................................................................................... 28 3.5 Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................. 29 3.6 Fish Community ..................................................................................................................................... 31 3.7 Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 32 3.7.1 Site SNCK_1 ......................................................................................................................................... 32 3.7.2 Site SNCK_2 ......................................................................................................................................... 33 3.7.3 Site SNCK_3 ......................................................................................................................................... 33

4. Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................................. 33 5. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 References ................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix A – Surface Water ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix B – Sediment ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix C – Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................................ 48 Appendix D – Zooplankton ........................................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix E – Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix F – Fish and Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 60 Appendix G – Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................... 66



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Figures

Figure 2.1: New Britannia 2018 Field Programs Site Locations ................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.2: Fish Habitat Assessment Locations in Snow Creek ................................................................................... 19 Figure 3.1: The pH in Surface Waters (Mean ± Standard Deviation) ........................................................................... 20 Figure 3.2: Sulfate Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation) ..................................................... 21 Figure 3.3: Calcium Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation) ................................................... 22 Figure 3.4: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation) .................................... 23 Figure 3.5: Sediment Particle Size Analysis ................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3.6: Total Organic Carbon in Sediment (Mean ± Standard Deviation) ............................................................... 25 Figure 3.7: Major Sediment Cations (milli-equivalents/kg dry weight) .......................................................................... 25 Figure 3.8: Relative Density of Major Phytoplankton Taxonomic Groups ..................................................................... 27 Figure 3.9: Relative Biomass of Major Phytoplankton Taxonomic Groups ................................................................... 28 Figure 3.10: Zooplankton Relative Density of Major Taxonomic Groups ...................................................................... 29 Figure 3.11: Relative Density of the Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxa .................................................................... 31

Tables

Table 2.1: New Britannia 2018 Field Programs .............................................................................................................. 9 Table 2.2: 2018 Sample Collection Details ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2.3: Trophic Categories for Freshwater Lakes and Rivers based on Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Concentration ... 14 Table 2.4: Sampling Location and Effort for Phytoplankton and Zooplankton .............................................................. 15 Table 2.5: Zooplankton Sample Volume ....................................................................................................................... 16 Table 2.6: Electrofishing Settings and Effort ................................................................................................................. 17 Table 2.7: Minnow Trapping Effort ................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 2.8: Sediment Particle Size Categories .............................................................................................................. 18 Table 2.9: Stream Flow Categories and Characteristics ............................................................................................... 18 Table 3.1: Phytoplankton Density, Biomass and Taxon Richness ................................................................................ 27 Table 3.2: 2018 Zooplankton Density and Taxon Richness .......................................................................................... 29 Table 3.3: 2018 Benthic Invertebrate Taxon Richness and Density .............................................................................. 30 Table 3.4: Overall Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxa ............................................................................................... 30 Table 3.5: 2018 Fish Catch Summary .......................................................................................................................... 32 Table 4.1: Summary Statistics for Surface Water and Sediment Relative Percent Difference ...................................... 34 Table 4.2: Distribution of Relative Percent Difference .................................................................................................. 34



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Abbreviations

CCME Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment ⁰C Degrees Celsius cm Centimeters EPT Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera g Grams IQR Inter-Quartile Range ISQG Interim Sediment Quality Guideline LPL Lowest Practical Level m Meter meq Milli-equivalents mg/kg dw Milligrams per kilogram dry weight mg/L Milligrams per liter mm Millimeters NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 % Percent PEL CCME Probable Effects Level Sediment Quality Guideline QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control STD Standard Deviation TIA Tailings Impoundment Area µM Micrometer µS/cm Micro Siemens per centimeter UTM Universal Transverse Mercator



December 18, 2018


AECOM

Glossary

Circumneutral pH: Surface waters with a pH of between approximately 6.5 and 7.5 on the pH scale. Density: The number of organisms rcorded per unit area or volume. Frequency: The total number of sites at which an organism is recorded at least once. Lowest Practical Level (LPL): The lowest level of taxonomic identification that can reasonably be achieved using standard taxonomic keys and protocols. The lowest practical level is variable, and depends on the taxonomic group, stage of development of the specimen, and the condition of the sample. Relative Percent Difference (RPD): The absolute difference between two samples divided by the average of the two samples. This is a QA/QC metric that provides information on the precision of an analysis – the higher the RPD, the lower the precision. For water chemistry data, RPD values should be less than 10% for analytes recorded at concentrations of at least five times the detection limit. Relative Frequency: The number of sites at which an organism is recorded, divided by the total number of sites that were sampled. Relative Density: The density of an organism at a site, divided by the sum of densities from all sites that were sampled. Secchi Disc: A black and white 30 cm disk that is lowered down into the water on a line. The Secchi depth is the depth at which the black and white sections of the Secchi disc can no longer be distinguished. The Secchi depth is a measure of water clarity – the greater the Secchi depth, the clearer the water. Taxon Richness: The total number of distinct taxa recorded at a site. The richness value, at least in part, depends on the level of taxonomic delineation; richness will be less for studies using Family-level or higher identification compared with studies using lowest practical level identification. Trophic Status: The estimated productivity of an aquatic ecosystem. Trophic status can be estimated using total phosphorus concentration, total nitrogen concentration, Secchi depth measurement, and/or chlorphylla concentration.



December 18, 2018


AECOM 9

1. Introduction Hudbay Minerals Inc. (Hudbay) proposes to refurbish and operate the existing New Britannia Mill (the ‘Mill’) to process gold and silver ore from Lalor Mine. The Mill will produce copper concentrate by flotation, and bars of gold and silver extracted by cyanide leaching of flotation tailings. The refurbished New Britannia Mill will have a design capacity of 1,500 tonnes per day, and it is anticipated that it will operate 24 hours per day, 362 days per year, with scheduled downtime for maintenance as required. Management of tailings will be via a Pipeline System into the Anderson Tailings Impoundment Area (TIA) with the allowance for a return water system.

For the purposes of this report, the proposed upgrades to the New Britannia Mill and the installation of a Pipeline System will be referred to as the ‘Project.’

This Aquatic Environment Technical Data Report contains the information described in Manitoba Sustainable Development’s “Information Bulletin – Alterations to Developments with Environment Act Licenses” (2016) as a submission requirement component of the ‘Notice of Alteration’ submitted by Hudbay Minerals Inc. for consideration by the Environmental Approvals Branch in relation to the New Britannia Mill Environment Act License No. 1878 S3 RR.

2. Methods Water chemistry, sediment chemistry, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish and fish habitat were assessed in the Project Region as defined for the proposed Project. A total of six waterbodies and ten sites were included in the 2018 field studies (Table 2.1; Figure 2.1). The sites are all located within the Project Region (Figure 2.1). Anderson Creek is the direct discharge point of the Anderson TIA. The proposed alignment of the new pipeline system crosses Snow Creek.

Fieldwork occurred from June 25-29, 2018, and from September 16 to 24, 2018. Sites were located near the middle of each waterbody, and where there were multiple sites, the sites were spread out to be representative of the lake or creek (Figure 2.1).

Table 2.1: New Britannia 2018 Field Programs

Waterbody Site ID UTM (NAD83, 14U) Environmental Component 2018 Field Programs Easting Northing JUN SEP

Wekusko Lake: Anderson Bay ANB_01A 439466 6076571

Water Chemistry X X

Sediment Chemistry X X Phytoplankton X X

Zooplankton X X Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

Wekusko Lake: Snow Bay

SBY_1 443583 6080148

Water Chemistry X X Sediment Chemistry X X Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton X X

Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

SBY_2 443167 6079025

Water Chemistry X X Sediment Chemistry X X Phytoplankton ---- ---- Zooplankton ---- ----



December 18, 2018


AECOM 10



Anderson Creek ANC_06 439131 6077625

Water Chemistry X X Sediment Chemistry X X Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton X X Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

Snow Creek

SNCK_1 437297 6080993

Water Chemistry X X

Sediment Chemistry X X Minnow Traps ---- X Electrofishing X X Habitat Assessment X ---- Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton X X


SNCK_2 437860 6080981

Water Quality X X Sediment Quality X X Minnow Traps ---- X Electrofishing ---- X Habitat Assessment X ----

Phytoplankton ---- ---- Zooplankton ---- ---- Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

SNCK_3* 443716 6081902

Water Quality X X Sediment Quality X X Minnow Traps X X

Electrofishing X X Habitat Assessment X ---- Phytoplankton ---- ---- Zooplankton ---- ---- Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

Snow Lake

SLK_1 433884 6079964

Water Quality X X

Sediment Quality X X Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton X X Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

SLK_2 435907 6081023

Water Quality X X Sediment Quality X X

Phytoplankton ---- ---- Zooplankton ---- ---- Benthic Invertebrates ---- X



December 18, 2018


AECOM 11


Stall Creek STCK_1 439873 6077017

Water Quality X X Sediment Quality X X Minnow Traps ---- X

Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton X X Benthic Invertebrates ---- X

*Electrofishing location in September was approximately 215 m downstream from location specified. See Figure 2.1 for site locations.

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

Town ofSnow Lake

WekuskoLake

SnowLake

HerbletLake

SquallLake

McLeodLake

Anderson Lake

S393

S392

S395

ANC-06

ANB-01A

SNCK_1 SNCK_2

SNCK_3

SLK_1

SLK_2

STCK_1

SBY_1

SBY_2

Last

sav

ed b

y: S

TEP

HA

NIE

.CLA

RK

(201

9-01

-14)

File

nam

e: P

:\605

6749

2\90

0-C

AD

_GIS

\920

-929

(GIS

-GR

AP

HIC

S)\0

2_M

XD

S\H

\AQ

UAT

IC E

NV

RE

PO

RT\

H00

2_1_

6056

7492

_TD

R_W

ATE

RS

AM

PLI

NG

.MX

DLa

st P

lotte

d: M

on J

an 1

4, 2

019

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent I

nitia

ls:

Des

igne

r:C

heck

ed:

App

rove

d:A

NS

I B 2

79.4

mm

x 4

31.8

mm

NEW

BRI

TANN

IA M

ILLAQ

UATIC

ENV

IRON

MENT

TECH

NICA

L DAT

A RE

PORT

HU

DB

AY M

INE

RA

LS IN

C.

Pro

ject

No.

: 605

6749

2Fig

ure:

2.1

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N1:100,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's clientand may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law orfor use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts noresponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written

Basemap: GeoGratis

1 0 1 2 30.5

km

Dat

e: 2

019-

01-1

4

Legend!P Water Sampling Sites

Proposed Project Site

Project Area: 2 km From Project Site

Project Region: 10 km From Project Site

RoadsProvincial Road

WATE

R SA

MPLIN

G SI

TES

²

TrampingLake



December 18, 2018


AECOM 13

2.1 Surface Water The objectives of the surface water sampling program were to collect in situ data and water samples for analysis at an accredited laboratory from ten sample sites located in the six identified waterbodies (Figure 2.1: Table 2.1). Including duplicates and bottom samples, a total of 22 water samples were collected.

A YSI 556 meter was used to record in situ pH, temperature (°C), specific conductance (µS/cm), dissolved oxygen (%, mg/L) and oxidation reduction potential (mV) of the surface water from each identified sampling site. Water clarity was also measured at each lake site using a Secchi disc.

Surface water samples were collected at each site by directly submerging the specified water bottles (Table 2.2). Preservatives, if required, were added and mixed with the water sample immediately after sample collection, or were pre-loaded prior to field deployment (Table 2.2). Filtration for dissolved metals and mercury was completed in the field using a 0.45 micron filter fitted to a plastic syringe. Samples were kept cool and out of direct sunlight, to the extent possible. Samples were shipped to ALS Laboratory Group (ALS) in Winnipeg for analysis of the following parameters:

• Major anions (alkalinity, chloride, sulfate) • Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, reactive silica) • Total organic carbon, total inorganic carbon • Total and dissolved metals, including mercury • Aggregate organics (CBOD) • Plant pigments (Table 2.2)

ALS is an accredited analytical laboratory and employs standard laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) measures. As part of the field QA/QC program, analysis included one (1) field blank and one (1) trip blank. The field blank was filled with deionized water in the field and stored and transported with the field samples. The trip blank was filled with deionized water by the laboratory prior to the field program and was stored and transported with field samples but never opened. In addition, one duplicate sample was collected at one (1) site in Snow Lake.

Table 2.2: 2018 Sample Collection Details

Analyte Size (mL) Type Preservative

Major Ions 1,000 Polyethylene ---- Nutrients 250 Amber Glass Bottle 1ml (1:1) Sulfuric Acid Reactive Silica (SiO2) 125 Polylethylene ---- Aggregate Organics (CBOD) 1,000 ---- ----

Dissolved Metals 60 HDPE Nitric Acid Total Metals 60 HDPE Nitric Acid Total Inorganic Carbon 100 Amber Glass Bottle ---- Total Organic Carbon 250 Amber Glass Bottle 1ml (1:1) Sulfuric Acid Ultra-Trace Mercury - Dissolved 125 PTFE ---- Ultra-Trace Mercury - Total 125 PTFE ----

Mercury 40 Glass Bottle 0.3mL (1:1) HCL (Ultra Pure) Sediment 500 Glass Bottle ---- Chlorophylla 1,000 Opaque HDPE ---- Phytoplankton 500 HDPE Lugol's Solution Zooplankton 500 HDPE 70% Ethanol



December 18, 2018


AECOM 14

Analyte Size (mL) Type Preservative Benthic Invertebrates 500 HDPE 70% Ethanol

Note: not all samples were collected at every site during both sampling programs (June and September). Water chemistry data were compared with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) and the Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (MBWS 2011). For parameters that had both federal and provincial guidelines, the most conservative guideline was used.

The trophic status of the sampled waterbodies was determined using categories based primarily on total phosphorus threshold concentrations (CCME 2004; Dodds et al 1998), but with comparison to total nitrogen thresholds (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Trophic Categories for Freshwater Lakes and Rivers based on Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Concentration

Trophic Status Total Nitrogen Thresholds (mg/L) (Carlson & Simpson 1996)

Total Phosphorus Thresholds (mg/L) Lakes (CCME 2004) Rivers (Dodds et al. 1998)

Ultra-Oligotrophic ---- <0.004 ----

Oligotrophic <0.36 0.004 - 0.010 <0.025 Mesotrophic 0.36 - 0.75 0.010 - 0.020 0.025-0.075 Meso-eutrophic ---- 0.020 - 0.035 ---- Eutrophic 0.75 - 3 0.035 - 0.100 >0.075 Hyper-eutrophic >3 >0.100 ----

A single duplicate was collected for determination of Relative Percent Difference (RPD). For the 2018 sample period, the duplicate sample was collected from site SLK_1 in Snow Lake. The RPD calculations and summary are included in Appendix A, Table A.4.

2.2 Sediment The objectives of the sediment sampling program were to collect sediment samples for physical and chemical analysis at an accredited laboratory from ten sample sites located in six identified waterbodies (Table 2.1: Figure 2.1).

Samples of surficial sediment were collected at each of ten sites using multiple petite Ponar dredges until approximately 1000 mL of sediment was collected (Table 2.2). Acceptable grab samples were retrieved at the surface and the water was decanted from the dredge. Samples were then placed into one of two 500 mL glass containers and kept cool in the dark and shipped to ALS in Winnipeg for processing and analysis.

Sediment chemistry data were compared with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG), and Probable Effects Level (PEL) for the Protection of Aquatic Life (PAL) (CCME 2018). The ISQG’s are determined using the CCME protocol when there are insufficient data for a finalized guideline, and are based on toxicological data from the scientific literature (CCME 1995). The PEL defines the level above which adverse effects are expected to occur frequently (CCME 1995).

A single duplicate was collected for determination of Relative Percent Difference (RPD). For the 2018 sample period, the duplicate sample was collected from site SLK_1 in Snow Lake. The RPD calculations and summary are included in Appendix A, Table A.4.



December 18, 2018


AECOM 15

2.3 Phytoplankton The objective of the phytoplankton sampling program was to collect surface samples for enumeration at an accredited laboratory from the six identified waterbodies (Table 2.1: Figure 2.1).

Phytoplankton samples were collected at one site in each waterbody for a total of six samples (Table 2.4) by directly filling 500 mL HDPE bottles (Table 2.2) below the surface of the water. Each sample was preserved with a quantity of Lugol’s solution sufficient to turn the sample a tea-stained colour. The samples were kept cool and in the dark, and submitted to AAE Tech Laboratories in St. Anne, MB, for processing, analysis of algal biomass, and taxonomic identification to the lowest practical level. There were no QA/QC samples associated with the phytoplankton samples.

Table 2.4: Sampling Location and Effort for Phytoplankton and Zooplankton

Waterbody Site ID UTM (NAD83, U14) # Samples E N JUN SEP

Wekusko Lake: Anderson Bay ANB-01A 439466 6076571 1 1 Wekusko Lake: Snow Bay SBY_1 443583 6080148 1 1

Anderson Creek ANC_06 439131 6077625 1 1 Snow Creek SNCK_1 437297 6080993 1 1

Snow Lake SLK_1 433884 6079964 1 1 Stall Creek STCK_1 439873 6077017 1 1

2.4 Zooplankton The objective of the zooplankton sampling program was to collect surface tows for enumeration at an accredited laboratory from the six identified waterbodies (Table 2.1: Figure 2.1).

Zooplankton samples were collected at one site in each waterbody for a total of six samples (Table 2.4) using a 1.0 m long, 63 µm mesh size conical net, with a weighted cod-end attached to a single 0.12 m or 0.25 m diameter steel hoop frame. A single horizontal tow was performed at each site, although the length of the tow along the surface of the water was variable from site to site (Table 2.5). Upon retrieval, zooplankton were rinsed into a 500L HDPE sample jar and preserved with 70% ethanol (Table 2.2). The samples were kept cool and in the dark, and submitted to AAE Tech Laboratories in St. Anne, MB, for processing and taxonomic identification to the lowest practical level. There were no QA/QC samples associated with the zooplankton samples.

The volume of water (m3) that was filtered was calculated based on the hoop size (m2) and tow length (m) (Table 2.5). The estimate of abundance for each taxon per tow was then calculated as the number of individuals per cubic meter of water (individuals/m3).



December 18, 2018


AECOM 16

Table 2.5: Zooplankton Sample Volume

Waterbody Site ID Hoop

Diameter (m) Hoop Area

(m2) Tow Length

(m) Sample

Volume (m3)

JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP Anderson Bay ANB_01A* 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 10 5 0.127 0.253

Snow Bay SBY_1 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 10 5 0.127 0.253 Anderson Creek ANC_06 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 10 3 0.127 0.152

Snow Creek SNCK_1 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 9 6 0.114 0.304 Snow Lake SLK_1 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 10 4.5 0.127 0.228 Stall Creek STCK_1 0.127 0.254 0.013 0.051 4 5 0.051 0.253

* Tow length data not available. Tow length value is an estimate as per recorded tow lengths of other sites.

2.5 Benthic Invertebrates The objective of the benthic invertebrate sampling program was to collect samples for enumeration at an accredited laboratory from ten sample sites located in the six identified waterbodies (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1).

Sediment samples for description of the benthic invertebrate community were collected at all ten sites (Table 2.1). One sample was collected from each location, each consisting of a single dredge. Samples of surficial sediment were collected at each site using a single petit Ponar dredge with a sample area of 232 cm2 (15.2 cm x 15.2 cm). Each sample was sieved in the boat through a 500 µm mesh, placed in a 500 mL HDPE sample container, and preserved with 70% ethanol (Table 2.2). All samples were kept cool and in the dark and submitted to AAE Tech Laboratories in St. Anne, MB, for processing and taxonomic identification to the lowest practical level.

2.6 Fish Community The objective of the fish community sampling program was to capture, identify, and measure fish from Snow Creek and Stall Creek using a variety of methods (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1).

Fish collection was undertaken at Snow Creek using a Smith-Root LR 24 backpack electrofishing unit (Table 2.6). Effort at each site ranged from approximately 350 seconds to 1,000 seconds (Table 2.6). All captured fish were identified to species, enumerated, and measured for total length (cm) and weight (g).



December 18, 2018


AECOM 17

Table 2.6: Electrofishing Settings and Effort

Parameter Site ID SNCK_1 SNCK_3 SNCK_1 SNCK_2 SNCK_3

Date (2018) Jun-25 Jun-26 Sep-19 Sep-19 Sep-19

Stream Distance (m) 200 350 50 100 200 Stream Wetted Width (m) 25 20 28 20 14 Water Temperature (°C) 21.8 19.6 10.4 9.4 8.4 pH 7.9 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.6 Conductivity (µS/cm) 105 140 213 227 223 Easting - Start 437397 444038 437306 437872 444107

Northing - Start 6080972 6082114 6080980 6080979 6082094 Easting - End 437306 443954 437277 437820 443990 Northing - End 6081043 6082110 6081031 6080973 6082139 Frequency (Hz) 30 30 45 45 45 Volts (V) 260 260 450 500 400 Amps (A) 0.1 0.1 ---- ---- ----

Duty 12 12 12 12 12 Seconds 1,039 992 359 635 824

Fish collection was also undertaken at Snow Creek and Stall Creek using minnow traps baited with cat food (Table 2.7). Deployment ranged from less than two hours, to almost a full day (Table 2.7). All captured fish were identified to species, enumerated, and measured for total length (cm) and weight (g).

Table 2.7: Minnow Trapping Effort

Parameter Site ID SNCK_3 STCK_1 SNCK_1 SNCK_2 SNCK_3

Date (2018) Jun-25 to 26 Sep-15 Sep-19 Sep-19 Sep-19

Number Deployed/Site 4 9 9 9 9

Most Upstream Easting 443954

439895 437269 437821 443990 Most Upstream Northing 6082110 6077043 6081088 6080975 6082139 Most Downstream Easting 444038 ---- 437278 437846 444047 Most Downstream Northing 6082114 ---- 6081031 6080972 6082119 Time (hrs) 23.75 1.35 ---- 2.0 2.0

2.7 Fish Habitat The objective of the fish habitat assessment was to assess the stream habitat in Snow Creek (Figure 2.2; Table 2.1). A fish habitat assessment of Snow Creek was conducted because it is the waterbody that will potentially be directly impacted by the proposed Project. The assessment was undertaken in approximately 400 m to 500 m segments at each of the three identified sites along Snow Creek (Table 2.1). Within each stream segment, a habitat assessment was undertaken at a total of six observation points (Figure 2.2). For the habitat assessment of Snow Creek, the following habitat characteristics were described;



December 18, 2018


AECOM 18

• water depth at several locations spanning the width of Snow Creek • substrate particle size, including percent organic matter, fines, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder,

and bedrock (Table 2.8)

Table 2.8: Sediment Particle Size Categories

Category Diameter (mm)

Fines <0.06 Sand 0.06 - 2

Gravel 2 - 60

Cobble 60 - 256 Boulder >256

• channel characteristics, including compaction, embeddedness, width, sinuosity and turbidity • characteristics of the riparian areas, including width, vegetation, stability, material, and slope • cover, including percent instream cover, overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, boulders, and

woody debris • habitat type, including backwater, pool, flat, riffle, run, and rapid (Table 2.9)

Table 2.9: Stream Flow Categories and Characteristics

Category Characteristics

Backwater slack flow or reverse flow Pool deep, slow moving water Flat unbroken surface, slow

Run unbroken surface, fast, shallow Riffle broken surface, fast, shallow Rapid broken surface, fast, deep

LegendProposed Pipeline

Site ID!( SNCK_1

!( SNCK_2

!( SNCK_3

RoadsProvincial Road

!(!(!( !( !(

!( !(!(!( !( !(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

Snow Creek

AndersonLake

WekuskoLake

HerbletLake

DETAIL 1

DETAIL 2

UV393UV392

UV395

Last

sav

ed b

y: S

TEP

HA

NIE

.CLA

RK

(201

9-01

-14)

File

nam

e: P

:\605

6749

2\90

0-C

AD

_GIS

\920

-929

(GIS

-GR

AP

HIC

S)\0

2_M

XD

S\H

\AQ

UAT

IC E

NV

RE

PO

RT\

H00

2_2_

6056

7492

_TD

R_F

ISH

HA

BIT

AT.M

XD

Last

Plo

tted:

Mon

Jan

14,

201

9P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t Ini

tials

:D

esig

ner:

Che

cked

:A

ppro

ved:

AN

SI B

279

.4m

m x

431

.8m

m

NEW

BRI

TANN

IA M

ILLAQ

UATIC

ENV

IRON

MENT

TECH

NICA

L DAT

A RE

PORT

HU

DB

AY M

INE

RA

LS IN

C.

Pro

ject

No.

: 605

6749

2Fig

ure:

2.2

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 14N1:25,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's clientand may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law orfor use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts noresponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM's express written

250 0 250 500 750125

m

Dat

e: 2

019-

01-1

4

FISH

HABI

TAT A

SSES

SMEN

T

²

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !( !( !( !(!(

!(

UV395

UV392

T1 T2 T3 T4 T6T5

T1T2

T3 T4 T5T6

DETAIL 1

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

UV393

T1 T2T3

T4

T5

T6

DETAIL 2



December 18, 2018


AECOM 20

3. Results The results of the 2018 field program are organized below by ecosystem component, including surface water (Section 3.1), sediment (Section 3.2), phytoplankton (Section 3.3), zooplankton (Section 3.4), benthic invertebrates (Section 3.5), fish community (Section 3.6), and fish habitat (Section 3.7).

3.1 Surface Water Although the data were limited, consistent temporal differences in water chemistry were not apparent (Appendix A, Table A.1). Similarly, replicate sites within the same waterbody were also similar with respect to water chemistry (Appendix A, Table A.1). Therefore, water chemistry data collected from different seasons and from different sites within the same waterbody were combined when used to characterize water chemistry for each waterbody.

3.1.1 Characterization of Surface Waters Surface water temperatures were seasonal, and ranged from 18°C to 22°C in June, and from 7°C to 12°C in September (Appendix A, Table A.2). Regardless of the season, however, the surface waters in the study area were well oxygenated at all sites (Appendix A, Table A.2).

In 2018, five of the six sampled waterbodies were alkaline, with pH values consistently above 7.5 (Figure 3.1). The exception was Anderson Creek (ANC_06), where the water was circumneutral, with a pH of just over 7.0 (Figure 3.1). This indicates that pH in Anderson Creek is slightly less than found within the other five waterbodies, which is consistent with the use of Anderson Creek as the discharge location for the Anderson TIA. Not surprisingly, alkalinity was also reduced in Anderson Creek in comparison with the other five waterbodies; approximately 20 mg CaCO3 at ANC, versus 50 mg CaCO3 to 100 mg CaC03 at the other five waterbodies (Appendix A, Table A.1).

Figure 3.1: The pH in Surface Waters (Mean ± Standard Deviation)

Data Source: Appendix A, Table A.1. Sites ANB, SBY and SLK are lake sites (dark green), and sites ANC, SNCK and STCK are creek sites (lighter green).

The dominant anion was bicarbonate at all Snow Bay, Snow Lake, Snow Creek, and Stall Creek sites, while at Anderson Bay and Anderson Creek sites the dominant anion was sulfate (Appendix A, Table

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8.0

ANB ANC SBY SLK SNCK STCK

pH

Site



December 18, 2018


AECOM 21

A.1). At site ANC_06, the sulfate concentration was over 600 mg/L, while for the other sites the sulfate concentration was less than 25 mg/L (Figure 3.2). Sulfate at site ANB_01A was also elevated, with the average concentration at approximately 200 mg/L. These data indicate, again, that site ANC_06 is influenced by discharge from Anderson TIA.

Figure 3.2: Sulfate Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation)

Data Source: Appendix A, Table A.1. Sites ANB, SBY and SLK are lake sites (dark green), and sites ANC, SNCK and STCK are creek sites (lighter green). The dominant cation was calcium at all waterbodies, with low concentrations of the other major cations sodium, potassium, and magnesium (Appendix A, Table A.1). However, at sites ANC_06 and ANB_01A, calcium concentrations were elevated in comparison with the other four waterbodies: the calcium concentration was over 250 mg/L Ca at ANC_06, almost 100 mg/L at ANB_01A, but less than 30 mg/L Ca in all Snow Bay, Snow Lake, Snow Creek, and Stall Creek sites (Figure 3.3). These results again highlight that water chemistry in Anderson Creek is being influenced by discharge from Anderson TIA.

Based largely on the calcium concentration (Figure 3.3; Appendix A, Table A.1) in comparison with Canadian drinking water guidelines (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/hardness-durete/index-eng.php), sites ANC_06 and ANB_01A were classified as very hard water (> 180 mg CaCO3/L), and the other eight sites as soft (30 mg/L to 60 mg/L), to medium hard (60 mg/L to 120 mg/L) water.

0

200

400

600


Sulfa

te (m

g/L)

Site



December 18, 2018


AECOM 22

Figure 3.3: Calcium Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation)

Data Source: Appendix A, Table A.1. Sites ANB, SBY and SLK are lake sites (dark green), and sites ANC, SNCK and STCK are creek sites (lighter green). The total phosphorus (TP) concentration amongst the six waterbodies was variable. The highest concentrations were recorded at site ANC_06 in Anderson Creek, where the mean TP was estimated at just below 0.080 mg/L (Figure 3.4; Table A.1). The concentration at site ANB_01A in Anderson Bay was only slightly lower, where the mean TP was estimated at just below 0.060 mg/L (Figure 3.4). These TP concentrations classify both Anderson Creek and Anderson Bay as eutrophic, or highly productive (Table 2.3). In contrast, the two other lakes (Snow Bay and Snow Lake) and Stall Creek had lower TP concentrations and were classified as mesotrophic. Snow Creek was the least productive waterbody amongst the study sites, and was classified as oligotrophic (Table 2.3). Comparison of the total nitrogen data (Appendix A, Table A.1) with trophic classification values (Table 2.3) indicated broad agreement with the classification of trophic status based on TP concentration.

0

100

200

300


Cal

cium

(mg/

L)

Site



December 18, 2018


AECOM 23

Figure 3.4: Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Surface Water (Mean ± Standard Deviation)

Notes: Data Source Appendix A, Table A.1. Sites ANB, SBY and SLK are lake sites (dark green), and sites ANC, SNCK and STCK are creek sites (lighter green).

3.1.2 Depth Profiles in Lakes Depth profile data were collected in September for Snow Bay site SBY_1, and in both June and September for Snow Lake site SLK_1. Although the data were limited, no stratification was observed during either spring 2018 or fall 2018 surveys for any of the measured parameters, which included temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and total dissolved solids (Appendix A, Table A.3). These results suggest that both Snow Bay and Snow Lake were well-mixed in 2018, although this conclusion is uncertain for Snow Bay because a complete depth profile was not developed.

3.1.3 Water Quality During the June 2018 survey, the total suspended solids or turbidity guideline was exceeded in Anderson Bay, Snow Bay, Snow Creek, and Stall Creek for at least one site in each waterbody (Appendix A, Table A.1). During the fall 2018 survey, water was clearer and the total suspended solid guideline was only exceeded at one site in Snow Lake and in Stall Creek.

Similarly, the CCME guideline for total aluminum was exceeded during the June survey in Anderson Bay, Snow Bay, Snow Lake, Snow Creek, and Stall Creek for at least one site in each waterbody (Appendix A, Table A.1). During the fall, total aluminum was only exceeded in Stall Creek and one site in Snow Bay.

The disparity in turbidity and aluminum levels between June and September highlights the effect of water level and flow on water quality. In spring, when levels are generally high and flows are relatively rapid, particulate materials are mobilized into the water column and water is turbid. Associated with these particles are aluminum ions associated with the entrained clay.

Apart from turbidity and aluminum, exceedance of guideline values in surface waters (for at least one sample in each waterbody) for specific analytes included the following (Appendix A, Table A.1);

• Anderson Bay: chromium, copper, iron, selenium, and zinc • Anderson Creek: copper, selenium, and zinc • Snow Bay: chromium, and iron

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10


Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Site



December 18, 2018


AECOM 24

• Snow Creek: chromium, and iron • Stall Creek: iron • Snow Lake: no water quality guidelines were exceeded

3.2 Sediment Although the data were limited, consistent temporal differences in sediment chemistry were not apparent (Appendix B, Table B.1). Similarly, replicate sites within the same waterbody were also similar with respect to sediment chemistry (Appendix B, Table B.1). Therefore, sediment chemistry data collected from different seasons and from different sites within the same waterbody were combined when used to characterize sediment chemistry for each waterbody.

3.2.1 Sediment Characterization Sediment particle size was variable amongst the six waterbodies. Anderson Creek and Snow Creek sediments contained the most sand, while the other four waterbodies were composed primarily of finer material (Figure 3.5). Sediments collected from Anderson Bay in Wekusko Lake were dominated by silt particles, while sediment from Snow Bay in Wekusko Lake, Snow Lake and Stall Creek contained a relatively even mixture of silt and clay particles (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5: Sediment Particle Size Analysis

Data Source: Appendix B, Table B.1 Total organic carbon was also variable among waterbodies, although related to particle size (Figure 3.6). Anderson Creek and Snow Creek sediments contained the least amount of total organic carbon (<5%) but the highest amount of sand (>50%) (Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6). The other four waterbodies contained varying amounts of total organic carbon, ranging from approximately 6% to 21% (Figure 3.6).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ANC SNCK ANB SBY SLK STCK

Part

icle

Siz

e (%

)

Site

% Clay (<2um) % Silt (0.05mm - 2um) % Sand (2.0mm - 0.05mm)



December 18, 2018


AECOM 25

Figure 3.6: Total Organic Carbon in Sediment (Mean ± Standard Deviation)

Notes: Data Source Appendix B, Table B.1. Sites ANB, SBY and SLK are lake sites (dark green), and sites ANC, SNCK and STCK are creek sites (lighter green). Major cations in the sediment (excluding aluminum) included iron, manganese, calcium, and potassium (Appendix B, Table B.1). The dominant cations were iron, which ranged from 35% to 45% of the total cationic charge, and magnesium, which ranged from approximately 30% to 35% of the total charge (Figure 3.7). Calcium and potassium were at lower concentrations, with other cations being minor constituents in comparison (Figure 3.7). The relative content of the major cations was consistent among the six waterbodies, with no large differences apparent.

Figure 3.7: Major Sediment Cations (milli-equivalents/kg dry weight)

Data Source: Appendix B, Table B.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Tota

l Org

anic

Car

bon

(%)

Site

0

20

40

60

80

100


Maj

or C

atio

ns (%

Tot

al m

eq)

Site

Potassium Iron Magnesium Calcium



December 18, 2018


AECOM 26

3.2.2 Sediment Quality Exceedance of PEL (represented as text in bold and italics) and ISQG in sediment (for at least one sample in each waterbody) for specific analytes included the following (Table B.1);

• Anderson Bay: arsenic, cadmium, copper, and zinc • Anderson Creek: arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc • Snow Bay: arsenic, and copper • Snow Lake: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc • Snow Creek: arsenic, and chromium • Stall Creek: No sediment guidelines were exceeded

Evaluation of the sediment chemistry data against the ISQG indicated that multiple metals exceeded guideline at all waterbodies except Stall Creek (STCK_1). However, evaluation against the PEL indicated that Anderson Creek was the only site with multiple metals exceeding the relevant guideline. These data indicate that Anderson Creek has a metal load in the sediment considerably greater than at the other five waterbodies.

Arsenic exceeded the CCME ISQG of 5.9 mg/kg dry wt. at five of the six waterbodies (Table B.1). However, only three waterbodies exceeded the CCME PEL (CCME 2018) arsenic content of 17 mg/kg dry wt. (Table B.1). This indicated that although arsenic content was elevated within these five waterbodies, the arsenic content at most sites was at a level less likely to result in effects to biota.

3.3 Phytoplankton The phytoplankton community among the six sites contained 174 distinct taxonomic groups identified to the lowest practical level, and contained within nine separate phyla (Appendix C, Table C.1 and Table C.3). For individual sites, taxon richness ranged from five taxa in Stall Creek in June, to 57 taxa at Snow Bay in June (Table 3.1). Richness was therefore spatially variable. There was also variability in taxon richness between samples collected in June and those collected in September (Table 3.1). At sites Anderson Bay, Anderson Creek and Stall Creek, taxon richness was two to three times higher in September, while for sites Snow Bay, Snow Creek and Snow Lake, taxon richness was higher in June (Table 3.1).

Phytoplankton density was also spatially variable (Table 3.1). In June, density among the six waterbodies ranged from approximately 0.0019 x 108 units or cells/L to 2.71 x 108 cells or units/L, which is a difference of greater than 1,000 times (Table 3.1). Similarly, in September density among the six waterbodies ranged from approximately 0.012 x 108 units or cells/L, to 1.55 x 108 organisms/L (Table 3.1).

Estimated phytoplankton biomass (calculated from the density data) was also spatially and temporally variable, although not entirely consistent with the variability in density (Table 3.1). That is, the sites with the highest phytoplankton density did not necessarily have the highest biomass (Table 3.1). This is because biomass depends not only on phytoplankton density, but also on the size of the phytoplankton. As the phytoplankton community evolves through the seasons, the average size will also vary. For instance, at site ANB_01A the density was higher in the fall, but the biomass was considerably greater in the spring, and at site SBY_1 the opposite was true (Table 3.1).



December 18, 2018


AECOM 27

Table 3.1: Phytoplankton Density, Biomass and Taxon Richness

Site ID Density (units or cells/L) x 108 Biomass (μg/L) Taxon Richness (LPL)* JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP

ANB_01A 1.03 1.55 2,678 876 26 54 SBY_1 0.62 0.082 805 973 57 41

ANC_06 1.39 0.78 533 1,649 25 53 SNCK_1 1.72 1.05 642 2,064 32 20 SLK_1 2.71 0.77 2,124 884 45 31

STCK_1 0.0019 0.012 59 312 5 18 *Lowest practical level. Data Source: Appendix C, Table C.1 and Table C.3

Cyanophytes, or blue-green algae, were the most abundant phytoplankton at all but sites SBY_1 and STCK_1 in September, where the Chrysophytes, or golden algae, were dominant (Figure 3.8). Other abundant taxonomic groups included the Diatomeae, or diatoms, and the Chlorophytes, or green algae (Figure 3.8).

Despite the temporal variability in phytoplankton density (as discussed above), for four of the six phytoplankton sample sites the relative phytoplankton density, which is a measure of community structure, was comparable over time (Figure 3.8). At sites ANB_01A, ANC_06, SNCK_1 and SLK_1 the blue-green algae were most abundant for both the June and September samples (Figure 3.8). In contrast, at sites SBY_1 and STCK_1 the blue-green algae were most abundant in June, while the golden algae were dominant in September.

Figure 3.8: Relative Density of Major Phytoplankton Taxonomic Groups

Data Source: Appendix C, Tables C.2 and C.4 Blue-green algae, which dominated the phytoplankton community based on density, were only a minor component of the biomass of the phyotoplankton community (Figure 3.9). Instead, the phytoplankton biomass was largely composed of diatoms and golden algae, with the Cryptophyceae, or cryptomonads, also of importance at a few sites (Figure 3.9).

0

20

40

60

80

100

JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP JUN SEP

ANB SBY ANC SNCK SLK STCK

Rel

ativ

e D

ensi

ty (%

)

Site

Diatomeae Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta



December 18, 2018


AECOM 28

The consistency in relative density was also not observed for relative biomass (Figure 3.9). The composition of the phytoplankton community base on biomass was variable amongst the six phytoplankton sample sites, and at most sites there was also considerable temporal variability as the phytoplankton community evolved through the open-water season.

Figure 3.9: Relative Biomass of Major Phytoplankton Taxonomic Groups

Data Source: Appendix C, Tables C.2 and C.4

3.4 Zooplankton

A total of 13 distinct taxonomic groups at the lowest practical level were enumerated, including six families in the Order Cladocera, five families in the Subclass Copepoda, and two families in the Phylum Rotifera (Appendix D, Table D.1, Table D.3). For individual sites, taxon richness ranged from five taxa at ANB_01A in June and September, to ten taxa at ANC_06 in June (Table 3.2). The richness data were based on Family-level or higher identification, so it is likely that the actual species richness was some amount greater than the recorded taxon richness.

Zooplankton density was spatially variable (Table 3.2). In June, density among the six sites ranged from approximately 700 organisms/m3 to over 37,000 organisms/m3, which is a difference of greater than 50 times (Table 3.2). Similarly, in September density among the six zooplankton sample sites ranged from approximately 800 organisms/m3 to almost 30,000 organisms/m3 (Table 3.2). The variability in density was possibly related to the wide variety in aquatic habitat among the sites, which ranged from lakes to creeks, from relatively fast-flowing water to calm waters, and from sand to clay sediment (see Section 3.7).

Zooplankton density was also temporally variable (Table 3.2). The RPD calculated on the June/September data ranged from 25% to almost 180% among the six sites (Table 3.2). These are high numbers, considering that RPD calculated on the data average has a maximum value of 200%.

The variability in density highlights that zooplankton communities are habitat specific, unevenly distributed, and constantly evolving through the seasons. These community characteristics and the resulting variability make zooplankton a difficult ecosystem component for use in environmental monitoring programs.

0

20

40

60

80

100



Rel

ativ

e B

iom

ass

(%)

Site

Cryptophyceae Diatomeae Chrysophyta Chlorophyta Cyanophyta



December 18, 2018


AECOM 29

Table 3.2: 2018 Zooplankton Density and Taxon Richness

Site ID Density (#/m3) Taxon Richness* JUN SEP RPD (%) JUN SEP

ANB_01A 821 1,737 72 5 5

SBY_1 1,263 6,406 134 6 6 ANC_06 26,887 4,381 144 10 6 SNCK_1 710 11,703 177 7 7 SLK_1 37,631 29,300 25 7 8

STCK_1 12,177 841 174 9 6 *Lowest practical level. RPD = Relative Percent Difference. Data Source: Appendix D, Table D.1 and Table D.3

There were four prevalent zooplankton groups among the six sampled sites (Figure 3.10), which in order of total abundance included cladocerans, copepods, rotifers, and ostracods (Appendix D, Table D.2 and Table D.4). The cladocerans and copepods were found at all sites and were therefore relatively prevalent in comparison with the rotifers and ostracods that were absent from several sample sites (Figure 3.10).

Despite the temporal variability in zooplankton density, for four of the zooplankton sample sites the relative zooplankton density, which is a measure of community structure, was comparable over time (Figure 3.10). At ANB_01A and SBY_1 the copepods were dominant for both the June and September samples, while at sites SNCK_1 and SLK_1 the cladocerans were dominant (Figure 3.10). In contrast, at site ANC_06, the June sample contained a large number of rotifers which were absent from the site in September. Similarly, at site STCK_1, ostracods were enumerated in large number in June, but not in September (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10: Zooplankton Relative Density of Major Taxonomic Groups

Data Source: Appendix D, Table D.2 and Table D.4

3.5 Benthic Invertebrates A total of 30 taxonomic groups at the lowest practical level were enumerated (Appendix E, Table E.1). For individual sites, taxon richness ranged from four taxa in Snow Lake (SLK_1), to 12 taxa in Anderson

0

20

40

60

80

100



Rel

ativ

e D

ensi

ty (%

)

Site & Date

Rotifera Ostracoda Copepoda Cladocera



December 18, 2018


AECOM 30

Creek (ANC_06) (Table 3.3). The richness data were based on LPL identification, so it is likely that the actual species richness was some amount greater than the recorded taxon richness.

Benthic invertebrate density ranged from fewer than 1,000 individuals/m2 at both Snow Lake (SLK) sites, to almost 10,000 individuals/m2 in Snow Creek (SNCK_1) (Table 3.3). In Snow Creek, density ranged from approximately 1,800 individuals/m2 at SNCK_3, to approximately 9,200 individuals/m2 at SNCK_1 (Table 3.3). The distribution of benthic invertebrates in Snow Creek was therefore patchy and not uniform.

Table 3.3: 2018 Benthic Invertebrate Taxon Richness and Density

Site ID Taxon Richness Density (#/m2)

ANB_01A 9 5,151 SBY_1 5 1,731

SBY_2 8 3,160 ANC_06 12 6,968 SNCK_1 11 9,219 SNCK_2 7 4,934 SNCK_3 11 1,775 SLK_1 4 693

SLK_2 5 866 STCK_1 8 4,415

Data Source: Appendix E, Table E.1

Among the ten sites, the benthic invertebrate community was dominated by six taxa overall that comprised approximately 78% of the community (Table 3.4). These six taxa were collected in more than half the sites, or were found at a relative density of 5% or greater. The six taxa included midges, two genera of mayflies, two families of snails, and a bivalve (Table 3.4). All these taxa are prevalent in depositional environments with fine-grained sediment, such as lakes and slow-moving rivers. Of the six taxa, the midges, which are classified as true flies, were found at all ten sites with an average relative density of almost 35% (Table 3.4). The midges were therefore the dominant species overall among the ten sites.

Table 3.4: Overall Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxa

Classification Common Name Frequency (%)

Relative Density (%)

Order Diptera, Family Chironomidae Midge 100 33.8 Order Ephemeroptera, Family Ephemeridae, Caenis sp. Mayfly 60 13.5

Class Bivalvia, Family Sphariidae Pea Clam 50 8.9 Class Gastropoda, Family Planorbidae Ramshorn Snail 60 4.8 Order Ephemeroptera, Family Ephemeridae, Hexagenia sp. Mayfly 50 7.3 Class Gastropoda, Family Hydrobiidae Mud Snail 30 10.0

Sum ---- 78.3 Data Source: Appendix E, Table E.1

At individual waterbodies, the dominant taxa were variable (Figure 3.11). While midges were present at all sites, they were the most common species at Anderson Creek and Stall Creek. At Anderson Bay, the most common species were the snails, while at Snow Creek the most common species were the mayflies (Figure 3.11). At sites in Snow Bay and Snow Lake, however, taxa other than the dominant species were



December 18, 2018


AECOM 31

the most abundant (Figure 3.11). The between-site variability highlights the uneven distribution of benthic invertebrate taxa and the complexity of benthic invertebrate communities.

Figure 3.11: Relative Density of the Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxa

Data Source: Appendix E, Table E.1

3.6 Fish Community

Snow Creek and Stall Creek are located in the Nelson River watershed, which contains at least 34 species of freshwater fish, of which 31 are native and three are introduced species (Stewart and Watkinson 2007). A total of ten species were caught during the 2018 fieldwork (Table 3.5). These included nine common to the Nelson River watershed (Table 3.5). The Common Shiner, however, is not considered to occur in the Nelson River watershed, but is restricted to south and eastern Manitoba (Stewart and Watkinson 2007). Considering the species native range, it was likely a misidentification.

A total of 64 fish were caught, the majority from Snow Creek (Table 3.5). Of the ten species that were captured, the most commonly caught were White Sucker (n=22), followed by Longnose Dace (n=10) and Brook Stickleback (n=10); the other seven species were caught less frequently (Table 3.5).

The White Sucker were all juvenile fish, ranging in length from 2 cm to almost 10 cm (Appendix F, Table F.1), with a mean total length of 4.5 cm (Table 3.5). The other species were small-bodied fish, ranging in average size from 4.7 cm to 10.6 cm (Table 3.5)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Rel

ativ

e D

ensi

ty (%

)

Site

Other Snails Clams Mayflies Midges



December 18, 2018


AECOM 32

Table 3.5: 2018 Fish Catch Summary

Species Site ID Total Length

Common Name Scientific Name SNCK_1 SNCK_2 SNCK_3 STCK_1 Total Mean STD

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae 5 4 1 ---- 10 7.2 2.6

White Sucker Catostomus commersonii 14 ---- 8 ---- 22 4.5 1.8

Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus 1 ---- ---- 3 4 6.4 1.1 Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 5.5 ---- Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 6 ---- 1 ---- 7 7.2 2.0 Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita 4 1 ---- ---- 5 6.6 1.4 Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans 1 ---- 7 2 10 4.7 0.6

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 6.4 ---- Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum ---- 1 2 ---- 3 4.8 1.6 Common Shiner* Luxilus cornutus 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 10.6 ----

Total 34 6 19 5 64 ---- ----

Data source: Appendix F, Table F.1. *Not considered to occur in the Nelson River watershed (Stewart and Watkinson 2007). STD = Standard Deviation.

3.7 Fish Habitat Habitat assessment was undertaken for three sites on Snow Creek: SNCK_1, SNCK_2, and SNCK_3 (

Figure 2.2). Each site included six transects dispersed along an approximately 400 m segment of Snow Creek (

Figure 2.2). Photographs of all 18 transect locations are included in Appendix G, pages 9 to 49. Habitat assessment data is included in Appendix F, Table F.2.

3.7.1 Site SNCK_1 Photographs of this reach of Snow Creek are included in Appendix G, pages 9 to 23. This site is located immediately downstream of the outlet from Snow Lake. The upper portion of the reach, including transects T1 and T2, was characterized as a relatively narrow, fast-flowing stream with abundant coarse substrate. Riffle and run habitats were dominant, with abundant boulders (60% to 80% of the substrate) and cobble (20% of the substrate) (Appendix F, Table F.2). A section of rapids, composed of three short cascades, each with an approximately 1 m drop, was present at T2. This section may limit upstream access by fish during low flow conditions, but is not anticipated to be a complete barrier to fish passage. Mean bankfull width in this section was 30.0 m, mean wetted width was 25.0 m, and the maximum water depth was 0.71 m (Appendix F, Table F.2). Cover for fish was dominated by boulders, with woody debris subdominant. Riparian vegetation consisted of mature mixedwood forest.

Downstream of the rapids at T2, Snow Creek was characterized as a broad, slow-moving stream. Flat habitat was the dominant habitat type, providing 80% of the habitat area from T3 to T6 (Appendix F, Table F.2). Channel substrates were dominated by fines (49%), sand (25%), and organic materials (15%). Mean bankfull width was 49.3 m, mean wetted width was 41.8 m, and the maximum wetted depth was 0.63 m (Appendix F, Table F.2). Cover for fish was dominated by instream vegetation, with woody debris subdominant. Riparian vegetation was dominated by mature coniferous trees, with shrubs and graminoids present on the banks. Fallen trees provided abundant woody debris along the channel margins.



December 18, 2018


AECOM 33

3.7.2 Site SNCK_2 This reach of Snow Creek is a broad, straight, and slow-moving stream, similar to the downstream segment of site SNCK_1 (Appendix G, pages 23 to 35). A transmission line right of way crosses Snow Creek between transects T1 and T3, extending approximately 140 m along the stream. Throughout this site, flat habitat is dominant, occupying 84% of the stream area, with pools (10%) and runs (6%) providing the remaining habitat. Substrates are dominated by sand and fines (37% and 33%, respectively), with patches of cobble (16%), boulders (7%), and organic materials (7%) also present. Mean bankfull width was 37.7 m, mean wetted width was 34.2 m, and the maximum wetted depth was 0.84 m (Appendix F, Table F.2). Cover for fish was dominated by instream vegetation, with woody debris subdominant.

Riparian vegetation at the transmission line right of way, between transects T1 and T3, consisted of shrubs, graminoids, and small coniferous trees, typically less than 4 m in height. Riparian vegetation at transects T4 to T6 was dominated by mature coniferous trees. Fallen trees provided abundant woody debris along the channel margins.

3.7.3 Site SNCK_3 Similar to Site SNCK_2, this reach of Snow Creek is a broad, slow-moving stream (Appendix G, pages 36 to 49). The stream meandered irregularly in the section, with steep banks on the outside of the meander bends, and vegetated point bars along the inside the bends. Throughout this site, flat habitat is dominant, occupying 93% of the stream area, with runs (7%) providing the remaining habitat. Substrates are dominated by fines and sand (60% and 27%, respectively) with small amount of boulder (2%), bedrock (1%), and organic materials (10%) also present (Appendix F, Table F.2). Mean bankfull width was 34.2 m, mean wetted width was 21.2 m, and the maximum wetted depth was greater than 1 m (Appendix F, Table F.2). Cover for fish was dominated by deep water, with small amounts of woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and instream vegetation present. Riparian vegetation was dominated by mature coniferous trees, with shrubs and graminoids present on side-channel bars.

4. Quality Assurance The primary determinants of quality assurance for the 2018 fieldwork was inclusion of blank samples, and calculation of the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for the water chemistry and sediment chemistry duplicate data (Appendix A, Table A.4 and Appendix B, Table B.2). For both water and sediment, the duplicate sample was collected in Snow Lake (SLK_1) in June.

Analysis of the blank sample collected for water chemistry indicated that most analytes were below detection limit, and of those above the detection limit, none affected analysis of the water chemistry data from the sample sites (Appendix A, Table A.1). That is, the concentration in the blank sample was well below the concentration in the collected samples.

Summary statistics indicated that for both the sediment and water samples, the median RPD was less than 10% (Table 4.1). However, although the maximum RPD for the sediment samples was less than 10% for all analytes, for the surface water samples, the maximum RPD was 130% (Table 4.1). This latter value is well beyond what might be considered an acceptable RPD, and therefore indicates some uncertainty regarding the analysis of several of the analytes in the water samples.



December 18, 2018


AECOM 34

Table 4.1: Summary Statistics for Surface Water and Sediment Relative Percent Difference

Parameter Relative Percent Difference (%)

Surface Water Sediment

Mean 13.1 3.5 Standard Deviation 19.9 2.5

Coefficient of Variation 152 72 Median 6.6 3.3 25%ile 1.8 1.4 75%ile 17.5 5.0

1.5xInterquartile Range 23.7 5.4

Maximum 130 9.9

Data Source: Table A.4 and Table B.2

An examination of the distribution of RPD values indicated that for water chemistry data, there were 13 analytes with RPD values greater than 20% (Table 4.2). These included a number of dissolved and total metals, sulfur, inorganic carbon, and kjeldahl nitrogen (Appendix A, Table A.4). In contrast, for sediment chemistry there were no analytes with RPD values greater than 10% (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Distribution of Relative Percent Difference

RPD Category (%) Water Chemistry Sediment Chemistry

# Analytes Percent # Analytes Percent

≤10 43 64 38 100 >10 X ≤20 11 16 0 0 >20 X ≤30 4 6 0 0 >30 X ≤40 3 4 0 0 >40 X ≤50 4 6 0 0 >50 X ≤60 1 1 0 0

>60 1 1 0 0

Sum 67 100 38 100 Data Source: Table A.4 and Table B.2

5. Summary The preceding report includes data and analysis for a number of ecosystem components, including surface water, sediment, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish, and fish habitat. The report therefore meets the reporting and submission requirements described in Manitoba Sustainable Development’s “Information Bulletin – Alterations to Developments with Environment Act Licenses” (2016).



December 18, 2018


AECOM 35

References Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake Management Society. 96pp. Information available at: http://www.secchidipin.org/index.php/monitoring-methods/trophic-state-equations/. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2004. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life – Phosphorus: Canadian Guidance Framework for the Management of Freshwater Systems. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 2004. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2018. Canadian Environment Quality Guidelines. Accessed online at: http://st-ts.ccme.ca/en/. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1995. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. CCME EPC-98E. 35pp. Dodds, W. K., J. R. Jones, E. B. Welch. 1998. Suggested classification of stream trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Research 32: 1455-1462. MBWS (Manitoba Water Stewardship). 2011. Manitoba Water Quality Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Manitoba Water Stewardship Report 2011-01. November 28, 2011. 72pp. Stewart, K.W. and D.A. Watkinson. 2007. The Freshwater Fishes of Manitoba. University of Manitoba Press. Winnipeg, MB. 278pp.

http://st-ts.ccme.ca/en/

David Huebert Report New Britannia Mill 2018-11-23

Documents

Transcript of David Huebert Report New Britannia Mill 2018-11-23