gahcho ku project aemp

Gahcho Ku Project AEMP AEMP Workshop, Yellowknife, April 8, 2015 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Gahcho Ku Project AEMP AEMP Workshop, Yellowknife, April 8, 2015 AEMP P Wor orkshop shop Agen enda da Time me: : 8:30-1:00 1:00 PM Location on: Explo lorer rer Hot Hotel l Janvier er Meet eting ng Room Confere rence nce Call

  1. Gahcho Kué Project AEMP AEMP Workshop, Yellowknife, April 8, 2015

  2. AEMP P Wor orkshop shop Agen enda da Time me: : 8:30-1:00 1:00 PM Location on: Explo lorer rer Hot Hotel l Janvier er Meet eting ng Room Confere rence nce Call Nu Number - 1-877-217-1261 Code 9293073# Introduction (De Beers) 1. 1. • Workshop Objectives • Mine Plan/Milestones • AEMP WL Conditions • AEMP Development – Regulatory and Engagement 2. Overview of AEMP (Golder) 3. Comments (De Beers/Golder) • Traditional Knowledge • Frequency of Sampling/Monitoring • Analysis of the Data • Action Levels 4. Wrap-up and Path Forward 2

  3. Wor orksh shop op Objectiv ctives es • Project Update/Project Milestones – align with AEMP Program and Re-design timelines • AEMP Design Plan • Comments/Responses • Action Levels 3

  4. AEMP – Regulatory & Engagement • Baseline e studies - 1996 • Submission of EIS December 2010 • EIR Process – October 2011 to December 2012 AE AEMP Work rkshop shop - March arch 2013 13 • • Site Work rkshop hops - August 2013 13 - (As Aspect cts of the AE AEMP discussed) ed) • EIR process concluded with Ministerial sign-off in October 2013. • PLUP received November 2013 • Application for Type A Water Licence and Land Use Permit for Mining and Milling submitted in November 2013 AE AEMP Work rkshop hop - February 2014 • • Technical Sessions February 11-13, 2014 • AE AEMP Work rkshop hop - March 2014 • Public Hearing May 2014 Water Licence / Land Use Permit issued • September 2014 • Board Decision on AEMP – December 2014 4

  5. Location of Kimberlite Pipes in Kennady Lake Tuzo Hearne 5034 5

  6. Construction (2015) Dyke D Dyke E Area 2 Dyke C Area 1 Area 3 Dyke F Area 4 Area 5 Area 8 Dyke G Dyke A Area 7 Area 6

  7. Construction (2015-2016) Discharge Water ~21 Mi m 3 Area Dyke A1 2 Dyke L Area 1 Area 3 Discharg Dyke e Water Dyke Area J ~1.5 -2 Area 4 F Mi m 3 5 Area 8 Dyke H Dyke I Area Dyke Dyke A Area 7 G 6 Dyke K

  8. Operations (2016-2018) E D Operational Discharge Dyke Fine PKC Facility Water ~3.4 Mi C m3 - ~ Dyke L 2months of discharge B F Coarse PK pile Groundwater Tuzo M Area West Mine inflows 5034 8 ~5,200 m3/day Rock Pile 5034 I 5034 and Hearne ~ H 3,000m3/day G A Area N 7 Area Hearne Hear K 6 ne South Mine Rock Pile

  9. Estimated Inflows into Pits (5034 and Hearne) 9

  10. 11

  11. GK SNP Locations – Construction and Operations 12

  12. Review Water Licence Conditions – AEMP (Part I, item 2; Schedule 6, Part I) Preparation of an AEMP Design Plan – current to Sept 2019  Conceptual site model with clearly defined testable hypotheses for the AEMP and assessment and measurement endpoints  Monitoring for the purpose of measuring Project-related effects on the following components of the Receiving Environment • Hydrology Surface water quality • • Sediment quality • Lower trophic organisms • Fish habitat, fish health and fish tissue chemistry Assessing dispersion of mine discharges •  Sampling and Analysis Plan  Summary of how TK will be incorporated into AEMP studies  Description of the AEMP Response Framework 13

  13. Review Water Licence Conditions - AEMP • Revision of the AEMP Design Plan (Version 4) – May 2015 Submission of an AEMP Annual Report • – May of each year • Submission of the Aquatic Effects Re- evaluation Report – July 2019 (and every 3 years thereafter)  Description of Project-related effects since Project inception  Revise prediction  Provide supporting evidence for any proposed revisions to the AEMP Design Plan update • Development of an AEMP Response Plan  Required if any low action level is triggered 14

  14. AEMP Design Plan – 2015 to 2019 This AEMP monitoring period: 2 years construction and 2 years operation • Key Project activities: 2 years of dewatering •  WQ consistent between Area 3 and Lake N11, and Area 7 to Area 8 (if required)  Dewatering regulated by TSS EQC and Action Levels • First 2 years of planned operational discharge to Lake N11 and possibly 1 year to Area 8  Operational discharge regulated by EQCs 15

  15. Lake N11 EQCs (Operations) WQ Constituent EQCs Predicted Discharge Quality MAC (mg/L) MGC (mg/L) Year 1 (2017) Year 2 (2018) Ammonia 10 20 6.6 8.0 Sulphate 150 300 14 23 Nitrate 10 20 6.5 7.9 Total Phosphorus 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03 Chloride 160 320 35 85 Fluoride 0.15 0.3 0.08 0.12 Aluminum 0.1 0.2 0.068 0.085 Chromium 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.0018 Copper 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.0024 Iron 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.29 Molybdenum 0.3 0.6 0.003 0.004 Nickel 0.09 0.18 0.0035 0.0045 Uranium 0.06 0.12 0.0012 0.0019 TSS 15 25 - - 16

  16. AEMP Study Design Overview Monitoring Locations: – Core lakes • Area 8, Lake N11, Lake 410, and Kirk Lake – Reference lakes • Reference Lake 3 and East Lake – Raised lakes • Lakes A1, D2 and D3, and J1 – Downstream lakes and streams • L and M watersheds between Area 8 and Lake 410 17

  17. AEMP Study Design Overview Reference Lakes: • East Lake is general similar to the core lakes in terms of water and sediment quality and lower trophic communities • Refere rence ce Lake 3 has a shallower depth, more similar water and sediment quality to core lakes, and more abundant benthic community (compared to Reference Lake 2) 18

  18. AEMP Study Design Overview All components follow a common • sampling design • Component sampling methods include field observations and/or measurements, and sample collection for laboratory analyses • Data analyses are conducted on a component-specific basis, but include the same statistical comparisons • Each component follows a quality assurance / quality control process 19

  19. AEMP – 2015-2019 Fish Habitat Waterbody/ Predicted Change in Predicted Change Sediment Benthic Fish Tissue and Hydrology Water Quality Plankton Fish Health Watercourse Hydrology in Water Quality Quality Invertebrates Chemistry Community increased flow-through; Y (AEMP and Y (AEMP and Y (AEMP and Lake N11 increased flow at outlet; negligible Y Y N Y Y SNP) SNP) SNP) slight increase in water level increased flow-through Y (Lakes N14 Other N lakes some N lakes, particularly negligible N N N N N N N and 17) N14 minor changes Lakes D2, D3 increased water level (water and Y Y Y Y Y N N Y sediment quality) increased flow-through due Lake J1 to diversion from Lake A1 negligible Y N N N N N N N (Area 1) increased flow-through; Y (AEMP and Y (AEMP and Area 8 negligible Y Y Y N Y Y increased flow at outlet SNP) SNP) Area 8 outlet Stream Y (Streams K5 Y (L and M K5 and L and M increased flow negligible Y (Stream K5) N N Y N N and L2) Streams) streams increased flow-through; Subset of L and M increased flow at outlet; Y (Lakes L1 and Y (Lakes L2 and negligible N N N N N N lakes minor increase in water M1) M4) level increased flow-through; Lake 410 negligible Y Y N N N N N N increased flow at outlet increased flow-through; Kirk Lake negligible Y N N N N N N N increased flow at outlet East Lake none none Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Reference Lake 3 none none Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Kennady Lake Areas 2 partly dewatered, Areas 3 (not applicable) N (SNP only) N (SNP) N N N N N N to 7 and 5 become WMP

  20. AEMP Design Plan - Board Decision Review • Board Decision on AEMP Design Plan issued December 2014 (Water Licence MV2005L2-0015)  Current AEMP Design Plan addresses the construction and early operations phases of Gahcho Kué Mine  69 of 78 responses to Board comments were deemed acceptable, with recommendations, where applicable, to incorporate responses into the next version of the Plan  9 responses required follow-up: Sampling frequency (9, 42) • • Incorporation of TK (44) • WQ/sampling locations (50) • Plankton baseline data sufficiency (52) • Action levels (57, 58, 60, 61) 21

  21. Response #9 - Sampling Frequency Concern: • Will the period between monitoring cycles be reduced based on monitoring results? • Response provided was an incorrect entry Correct response:  The statement that sampling frequency may decrease in operations was made to indicate the expectation that following the cessation of operational discharge to Lake N11 (at the end of Year 3), measurement endpoints would begin to trend back to existing conditions  However, an increase in monitoring frequency of a component or a specific parameter due to prior monitoring results, particularly during the operational discharge may occur (e.g., a low action level trigger or the result of a special study)  De Beers will adjust the text in the next version of the AEMP Design Report to reflect these considerations 22

  22. Response #42 – Monitoring Frequency Concern • De Beers must clearly outline the monitoring frequency over the period of this version of the AEMP is in place Monitoring Plan • the AEMP sampling frequency for this AEMP version will be annual during 2015 to 2019 (not 2015 to 2018 as stated in the IR response) • rationale for any changes to sampling frequency for the 2020 AEMP or future AEMPs will be discussed in the AEMP re-evaluation report to be submitted in July 2019, and proposed in the next AEMP Design Plan, due September 2019 • Text in the Plain Language Summary updated 23

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.


More recommend