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)