Freshwater Aquatic Organisms and Habitat (2004-2007)

1. Freshwater Aquatic Organisms and Habitat (2004-2007) Rick Palmer Senior Fisheries Biologist Sharleen Hamm Aquatic Ecologist

2. Outline • Purpose of Program – EA vs. Operational • Biological Setting • Impact Statements • Common Issues • Non-Fish Bearing Status • Water Withdrawal • water supply • winter road • Reference Lakes • Compensation

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

9. 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

10. Impact Statements • 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Common Concerns • 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

21. Common Issues (cont) • 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

22. Common Issues (cont) • Water Withdrawal – water supply • Issue – DFOprotocol 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?

23. Water Supply Model

24. Common Issues (cont) • 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

25. Surface Area-Volume Relationship #1

26. Surface Area-Volume Relationship #2

27. Common Issues (cont) • 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

28. 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)

29. Thank-You