Gahcho Ku Project AEMP AEMP Workshop, Yellowknife, 10 February 2014 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Gahcho Kué Project AEMP

AEMP Workshop, Yellowknife, 10 February 2014

MV2005L2-0015

AEMP Workshop Agenda

• Introductions
• Workshop Objectives
• Project Update
• Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

– Overview

• Conceptual Site Model and Study Areas

– Update on Feedback Received to Date – Review and Discuss Community Engagement and Traditional

Knowledge

– Component Specific Monitoring Plans

• Hydrology, Water Quality, Sediment Quality, Plankton and

Benthic Invertebrates, Fish and Fish Health

• Baseline Information and Monitoring

– Response Framework, Action Levels and Weight of Evidence – Special Studies

• Next Steps/Future Meetings

– Working Group

2

Introductions

De Beers Canada Inc. De Beers Canada Inc.

Ver eronica Chisholm nica Chisholm Permitting Manager Craig Blackie Craig Blackie Environmental Superintendent - Permitting Rob Mello b Mellow Environment - Site

Golder Associat Golder Associates Ltd. es Ltd.

Zsolt K Zsolt Kovats ts AEMP Lead Kristine Mason Kristine Mason Fish and Fish Habitat Nathan Schmidt Nathan Schmidt Hydrology Rainie Sharpe Rainie Sharpe Fish Health Peter Chapman r Chapman

Wo Workshop O Objectives

• Provide a Project update
• Review and discuss Conceptual AEMP Design Plan
• Review community engagement/traditional knowledge approach
• Open discussion and review of proposed AEMP monitoring for key

components:

• Hydrology
• Water Quality and Sediment Quality
• Plankton, Benthic Invertebrates
• Fish
• Review Response Framework, proposed Action Levels, and Weight of

Evidence

• Describe any Special Studies
• Plan Next meeting

4

Project Timeline and Update

• Baseline sam

Baseline sampling begins in 1 ling begins in 1996 996

• December 2010- submission of the EIS
• November/ December 2012- Public hearings of EIR process
• Mar

March, 20 h, 2013- 3- AEMP w EMP wor

• rkshop

shop

• Sit

Site w workshops- kshops- August 20 gust 2013 - (Aspects

Aspects of the AEMP discus

• f the AEMP discussed)
• EIR process concluded with Ministerial sign-off in October 2013.
• PLUP received on November 29, 2013
• Application for Type A Water Licence and Land Use Permit for Mining and Milling submitted
• n November 29, 2013
• Comments from Reviewers due on January 16, 2014
• De Beers responses to reviewer comments January 27, 2014
• AEMP w

AEMP workshop- kshop- Februar ebruary 1 y 10, 20 , 2014

• Technical Sessions February 11-13, 2014
• Public Hearing May 5-7, 2014
• Water Licence/ Land Use Permit possibly issued September 2014
• AEMP finalized prior to issuance of Type A WL

5

De Beers EIR Commitments Related to AEMP

• Effects monitoring programs will include an SNP that focuses

primarily on Project site operations, as well as a more broadly focused AEMP

• The AEMP will have a study design developed according to currently

accepted statistical design principles and regulatory guidance

• Components will include hydrology, water quality, sediment quality, lower

trophic communities (e.g., plankton and benthic invertebrates) and fish

• It will also include monitoring related to the downstream flow mitigation

plan

• Monitoring will be conducted during construction, operations,

closure, and post-closure phases of the Project

6

De Beers EIR Commitments Related to AEMP (cont’d)

• Monitoring will involve programs focused on the receiving environment, with
• bjectives of:
• verifying conclusions of the EIS
• evaluating short-term and long-term effects on physical, chemical, and

biological components of the aquatic ecosystem of Kennady Lake

• estimating the spatial extent of effects
• providing necessary input to adaptive management
• AEMP guideline documents will be considered in the development of the

AEMP, as well as other related documentation publicly available from existing northern mines

• The development of the AEMP will involve regulatory and aboriginal input,

and inclusion of TK, where possible

7

De Beers EIR Commitments Related to AEMP (cont’d)

• Monitoring stations will be selected during detailed design phase of the

AEMP, and will consider the type and magnitude of predicted effects and sensitivity of the affected habitat

• De Beers commits to continue to develop AEMP water quality benchmarks

in the preliminary design of an AEMP for the Project

• The AEMP will incorporate a response framework, so that adaptive

management, additional mitigation, and/or monitoring can be applied, where necessary

• The AEMP will allow for adaptive management, so that any unexpected

adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem identified through the AEMP can be addressed (i.e., implementation of additional mitigation or compensation, as required)

8

Community Engagement / Traditional Knowledge

Water and Fish monitoring during Winter 2012

• Received feedback on fish out and key concerns with respect to fish in Kennady Lake and downstream
• Discussed Kennady Lake Closure

Site workshops in Aug/Sept 2012

• Water quality downstream – discussed monitoring locations in Kennady Lake and downstream
• Discussed fish movement (grayling) and experience at other mine sites
• Looked at Kirk Lake as possible TK Monitoring location and fish tasking
• Hydrology – connection from Kirk-Fletcher- Hoarfrost
• Suggested locations on where to net fish

Spring 2013 Community Visits

• Youth and Elders
• Look at locations using model
• Fish inspections and monitoring

Summer 2013 Site Workshop

• Mock AEMP monitoring

9

Feedback

• Criteria for selecting reference lakes
• Better explanation of Weight of Evidence approach
• Lessons learned from fish tasting events at other mines
• Linking response framework to monitoring objectives.
• Pros and cons of small vs. large bodied fish
• Concerns about mercury in fishes in raised lakes following de-watering
• Enough baseline?
• Methodology for sediment sampling- Ekman grabs vs. cores
• The importance of updating closure objectives as monitoring proceeds
• Should be monitoring Kirk Lake as well- will be important part of response

framework.

• Rationale needed for hydrology site locations
• Dissolved oxygen sampling in winter
• Duration of raised D/E lakes
• When does Kennady Lake become a water management pond.
• Distinguishing SNP and AEMP programs

10

11

Dewatering

Area 3 Area 1 Area 8 Area 6 Area 7 South Mine Rock Pile Fine PKC Facility Area 5 West Mine Rock Pile Area 4 Tuzo Hearne Coarse PK Pile 5034 Dyke B Dyke L Dyke A Dyke A1 Dyke D Dyke E Dyke F Dyke G Dyke H Dyke I Dyke J Dyke K Dyke N Dyke M From Lake N11

Operations

• ..
• j

N~.0

" ...

• ..

~ ·\ ,J

.

. ,.

.ff l:, .....

• .

I

Gahcho Kué – AEMP Concept

14

AEMP is a requirement

• f the Water

Licence Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Objectives:

a) To determine the short- and long-term effects of the Project on the receiving environment; b) To test the predictions made in the Environmental Assessment (EA) or in other submissions to the Board regarding the impacts of the Project on the Receiving Environment; Objectives: c) To assess the efficacy of mitigation used to minimize the effects of the Project on the Receiving Environment; and d) To identify the need for additional mitigation , if required, to reduce or eliminate Project-related effects.

EIS Predictions

Hydrology

– Changes in water levels and flows

Water and sediment quality

– Increases in major ions, nutrients and some metals – No acid deposition effects

Plankton and benthic invertebrates

– Increase in primary productivity

Fish

– Isolation of Kennady Lake for operations

• Fish-out

– No changes to fish community outside of Kennady

Lake

Effects will decrease with distance downstream

15

AEMP Aquatic Components

Key Com y Components

• nents
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
• Sediment Quality
• Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
• Benthic Invertebrates
• Fish

– Health – Tissue metals – Tasting – Community/Presence

• Traditional Knowledge

Suppor Supporting Com ting Components/Data ponents/Data

• SNP
• Special Studies

16

AEMP Approach - Hypotheses

Effects due to Project Activities

• Toxicity from operational discharge
• r inputs from mine structures
• Nutrient enrichment from
• perational discharge or seepages

form mine structures

• Habitat alteration

Key Questions for Each Component

• Example from Water Quality:

– Is water in Lake N11 during construction

and operations phases safe to drink?

– Is water in Lake N11 suitable to maintain

a viable aquatic ecosystem?

17

Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

18

Approach to AEMP

Phased approach – construction, operations, closure, and post-closure:

• Monitoring depends on key project activities (effort to be focused at different

locations at different frequencies throughout project) Proposed Monitoring areas:

• Core lakes – Area 8 (and Kennady Lake), Lake N11, Lake 410, and Kirk Lake
• Reference lakes – 2 lakes (from Reference Lake 2, 3, and East Lake?)
• Diversion lakes – Lakes A1, D2 and D3, and J1
• Downstream lakes and streams – between Area 8 and Lake 410

Initial design is for first 5 years – construction (2 years) and early stages of

• perations (3 years)

19

AEMP Monitoring

• All components follow a common

sampling design

• Component sampling methods

include field observations and/or measurements, 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

20

Summary of Monitoring Effort Focus by Project Phase

Period Key Project-Related Changes/Effects AEMP Focus Frequency Constru nstruction tion (2 Y (2 Years ars)  Construction of Dyke A and dewatering of Kennady Lake  Diversion of upper watersheds to N watershed, raised lakes levels and potential for mercury methylation  Discharges to Area 8 and Lake N11

• limited to prevent downstream

erosion or geomorphological changes

• timed to begin after peak of

spring freshet, such that peak flows not increased  Small increases in lake water levels downstream Initial years of Project monitoring Hydrology focus on downstream lakes and streams, N watershed lakes and streams. WQ, SedQ, benthic invertebrates, plankton, fish tissue/health, focus on:

• core lakes (e.g., Area 8, Lake N11, Lake

410 for WQ only)

• 2 reference lakes
• raised lakes (Lakes D2 and D3)

Fish health/fish tissue focus on small-bodied fish sampling only. Will be used as indicator for the need for large-bodied fish sampling. Fish studies for downstream flow mitigation plan focused on Arctic grayling fry presence in d/s streams Annually during construction period (as in initial years of project and AEMP development).

21

Summary of Monitoring Effort Focus by Project Phase

Pe Period Ke Key P Project-Related Ch Changes/Effects AEMP F AEMP Focu cus Freq requency Opera Operatio ions (1 (11 y 1 years ars)  Mining begins and processing plant begins operations  Mine rock and PK placed in specified areas  While WQ meets discharge criteria, water pumped from WMP to Lake N11 in early stages of operations (~3-4 years)  Reduction in d/s flows  Continued potential for mercury methylation in diverted watersheds, flows to N watershed Second phase of project, first phase of mining Hydrology focus on downstream lakes and streams, N watershed lakes and streams. WQ, SedQ, benthic invertebrates, plankton, fish tissue/health, focus on:

• core lakes (e.g., Area 8, Lake N11,

Lake 410 for WQ only)

• 2 reference lakes
• diversion/raised lakes (Lakes D2

and D3) Fish health/fish tissue focus on small- bodied fish sampling only Fish studies or downstream flow mitigation plan focused on adult Arctic grayling spawning migration and fry presence in d/s streams In the first few years of

• perations, frequency will be

annual (depending on results from monitoring in the construction period), with frequency at some sites/components being reduced

• ver time (i.e., as effects

understood). For example, after the first 3 or so years, it is expected that sampling may be conducted on a ~ 3 year cycle. Sampling may also be stopped at some sites where project changes and/or potential stressor removed (e.g., once discharges to Lake N11 stopped, it is expected that monitoring focus would be directed elsewhere)

22

Summary of Monitoring Effort Focus by Project Phase

Pe Period Ke Key P Project-Related Ch Changes/Effects AEMP F AEMP Focu cus Freq requency Clos Closure (8 to to 18 18 ye years)  Progressive reclamation of areas containing mine rock and PK begin as soon as practicable  Removal of infrastructure  Kennady Lake refilled using water pumped from Lake N11 (i.e., diversion of water from N watershed)  Similar to operations, continued reduction in d/s flows For the most part, similar to

• perations, except for water

withdrawals from Lake N11 Hydrology focus on downstream lakes and streams, N watershed lakes and streams. WQ, SedQ, benthic invertebrates, plankton, fish tissue/health, focus

• n:
• core lakes (e.g., Area 8, Lake

N11, Lake 410 for WQ only)

• 2 reference lakes

SNP would track WQ in refilling Kennady Lake Continued monitoring, as required, for downstream flow mitigation plan Likely to be on ~ 3 year cycle depending upon site/component For example, sampling for Lake N11 may be increased or added back to the program May no longer need sampling for any or all components in diversion lakes May start to collect winter under-ice WQ and in situ temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles in downstream lakes prior to post- closure Depending on results of monitoring downstream Arctic grayling and efficacy of flow mitigation plan, sampling frequency and protocols may be adjusted or reduced during closure

23

Summary of Monitoring Effort Focus by Project Phase

Pe Period Ke Key P Project-Related Ch Changes/Effects AEMP F AEMP Focu cus Freq requency Po Post-closure (20+ y (20+ years ars)  Reconnection of diversion watersheds to Kennady Lake  Removal of Dyke A and reconnection to downstream environment  Watersheds downstream of Kennady Lake are expected to return to near baseline conditions  Potential for increased nutrients in post-closure Kennady Lake and downstream Post-closure monitoring would be developed as part of closure planning. Expected that WQ, SedQ, benthic invertebrates, plankton, fish, and fish habitat monitoring would focus on re- establishment of aquatic ecosystem in Kennady lake. Hydrology focus on refilled lake and downstream lakes /streams. Monitoring of fish habitat compensation structures in Kennady Lake. Likely would continue to monitor other lakes as reference. Downstream monitoring would focus on potential for nutrient-related effects. Frequency to be determined. Focus on re-establishment of Kennady Lake as functional aquatic ecosystem, as well as downstream environment. Other sites may be reduced in frequency or removed from program.

24

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Hydrology

25

Hydrology - Baseline

Baseline work conducted between 1996 and 2013

• Climate data; hydrometric data collection; water level and discharge; lake

bathymetry; stream and lake shoreline geomorphology data; ice and winter flow information

• Hydrometric data collection at over 30 lake outlet channels with periods of

record of up to 11 years

• Hydrometric stations include Kennady Lake, tributaries, downstream receiving

waterbodies and reference waterbodies

• Bathymetric surveys of lakes of interest

within the LSA

• Channel and shoreline survey of

lakes of interest within the LSA

26

Hydrology - Baseline

• Many lake shorelines in LSA consist of boulders and exposed

bedrock

• Outlet channel beds typically armoured

– Outlet channels of smaller headwater lakes may be poorly defined and

flow through organic substrates

– Channel banks may consist of vegetated mats

• In winter, when lakes not frozen to the bottom, ice thickness grows

to ~1.8 m

• Small lake outlets usually frozen to the bottom

– Under-ice flow observed in larger lake outlets

• Lake levels follow a predictable seasonal cycle

27

Hydrology – Conceptual AEMP Design

Hydrology monitoring will include:

• Stream channel stability (i.e., potential for erosion, TSS)
• Lake shoreline stability in raised Lakes E1, D2, and D3
• Spring snow course survey and site met data
• Stream flows and water levels, and bank and channel integrity

Sampling locations will include:

• Core lakes – lake outlet flows and water levels in Lake N11, Area 8, Lake

410, and Kirk Lake

• Reference lakes – two lakes
• Diversion lakes – Lakes D2 and D3, and
• Other lakes – a subset of the L and M lakes

Key monitoring during dewatering, operational discharge and flow reduction

29

Hydrology – Conceptual AEMP Design

30

Waterbody/ Watercourse Monitor? (Y/N) Rationale Timing Sampling Depth Sample Type Number of Samples per Station Number of Stations Frequency Lake N11 Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Other N lakes (Lake N14) Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Lakes D2, D3a Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Lake J1 Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Area 8 Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Outlet streams from all sampled lakes Y monitor water levels and flows in construction and

• perations

1 ice-cover 3 open-water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual L and M lakes Y monitor water levels at subset of lakes in construction and operations Periodic 3 open-water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Lake 410 Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Periodic 3 open-water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Kirk Lake Y monitor water levels in construction and operations Continuous open- water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Reference Lake #1 Y reference lake 1 ice-cover 3 open-water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Reference Lake #2 Y reference lake 1 ice-cover 3 open-water n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Kennady Lake and Adjacent Watersheds Y Snowcourse survey 1 early spring n/a n/a n/a 1 annual Kennady Lake area Y Met Station Data - Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge Continuous n/a n/a n/a 1 annual

Evaluating Effects on Hydrology

Effects due to Project Activities:

• Changes in flows and water levels from Mine activities, such as

dewatering, operational discharge, or mine structures

• Changes in stream channel stability and integrity from Mine

activities, such as dewatering, operational discharge, or mine structures The effects on hydrology will be assessed by comparing to:

• 1. Baseline data
• 2. EIS predictions
• 3. Reference lakes

31

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Water Quality

32

Water Quality - Baseline

WQ sampling programs between 1995 and 1996, 2001 and 2005, and 2010 to 2013

• Kennady Lake watershed and downstream – primary focus early on
• Since 2010, focus included Lake N11 (and other N lakes) and potential reference

lakes

• Focused aquatics study in 2011

– Within lake variability of Area 8, Lake N11,

Lake 410, East Lake

– L and M lakes

• 2013 baseline program

– Core lakes, reference lakes and diversion lakes

Monitoring included:

• Open water and under-ice conditions
• Water chemistry
• Water column profiles

33

Water Quality - Baseline

• Water quality similar in LSA lakes;
• Lakes exhibit seasonal physico-chemical variation
• Most lakes have low concentrations of TDS, alkalinity and hardness,

and TSS

• Lakes are oligotrophic, and phosphorus-limited
• Lakes have low TOC and DOC, but possess some colour
• Metal concentrations generally low, but some metals (e.g.,

aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, and zinc) have been measured above aquatic life guidelines

• Similar WQ characteristics in downstream streams

34

Water Quality – Conceptual AEMP Monitoring Design

Water Quality monitoring will include:

• Water column profile measurements of physico-chemical parameters
• Water chemistry, including ions, nutrients, metals
• Seasonal sampling (under-ice and open water conditions) at multiple stations per

lake/stream Monitoring areas include:

• Core lakes: Area 8, Lake N11, and Lake 410
• Reference lakes – two lakes
• Diversion Lakes – D2 and D3
• Other lakes and streams – Stream K5, and subset of L and M lakes and

connecting streams

• SNP stations

36

Water Quality – Conceptual AEMP Design

37 Water Waterbody/ Water Watercourse Mo Monitor? (Y/N) (Y/N) Rati Ration

• nale

ale Timing iming Samplin Sampling Depth Depth Sample Type Sample Type Numb Number er of

• f

Samples per Samples per Station Station Numb Number er of

• f

Station Stations Frequency Frequency Lake N Lake N11 Y verify prediction of no change during construction; monitor change in water quality during operations; supporting data for fish health monitoring 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Lake Lakes D2, D3 s D2, D3a Y monitoring potential increase in TSS, mercury and nutrient concentrations from flooding of surrounding land; supporting data for fish health monitoring 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Area 8 Area 8 Y verify prediction of no change during construction; monitor change in water quality during operations; supporting data for lower trophic and fish health monitoring 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Area 8 Area 8 out

• utlet

et strea stream m (Strea (Stream K5) m K5) and L and L and and M str M streams Y no effect expected to water quality in construction; slight changes in concentrations of nutrients, TDS and metals in operations 1 open water grab grab 1 5 annual Sub Subset et of L and

• f L and M lakes

lakes Y no effect expected to water quality in construction; slight changes in concentrations of nutrients, TDS and metals in operations 1 ice-cover 1 open water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Lake 410 Lake 410 Y verify prediction of no change; early indicator of potential downstream effects? 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Reference Lake Reference Lake #1 #1 Y reference lake 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual Reference Lake Reference Lake #2 #2 Y reference lake 1 ice-cover 3 open-water depth integrated composite and profile 1 5 annual

Evaluating Effects on Water Quality

Effects due to Project Activities:

• Water quality changes resulting from dewatering, operational

discharge or mine processes

• Toxicity or nutrient enrichment from operational discharge

The effects on water quality will be assessed by comparing to:

• 1. Baseline data
• 2. EIS predictions
• 3. Guidelines, AEMP benchmarks, or EQCs
• 4. Reference lakes

38

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Plankton

39

Plankton - Baseline

• Baseline plankton data collected since 2007 to support the environmental

assessment and future AEMP

• In recent years, data collection has focused on addressing data gaps and

providing additional baseline info for monitoring 2011 Aquatic Resources Study

• Evaluate whether East Lake could be used as reference lake for core lakes
• Differences in phytoplankton and zooplankton communities between East Lake

and the core lakes

• 4 lakes differ both physically and chemically; nutrients alone are not driving

differences 2013 Reference Lakes Monitoring Program

• Two additional reference lakes (Reference Lakes 2 and 3) added in 2013

40

Plankton - Baseline

Phytoplankton and zooplankton community data available for the following key water bodies: Core lakes

• Kennady Lake, Lake 410, and Kirk Lake sampled in

2007

• Area 8 of Kennady Lake, Lake 410, and Lake N11

sampled in 2011 Reference lakes

• East Lake sampled in 2011
• Reference Lakes 2 and 3 sampled in 2013

Downstream lakes

• 5 smaller downstream lakes between Area 8 and Lake

410 (Lakes L2, M4, M3, M2, and M1) sampled in 2011

41

Melosira sp. (40x) Bosmina longirostris

Plankton – Conceptual AEMP Design

Plankton monitoring will include:

• Abundance, biomass, and composition of phytoplankton and zooplankton

communities

• Chlorophyll a, b, and c as a measure of trophic status
• Nutrient data, specifically total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and soluble reactive

silica, to support the plankton data

• Annual monitoring consisting of three open-water sampling events (i.e., July,

August, and September) Sampling locations during construction phase:

• Core lakes – Lake N11 and Area 8
• Reference lakes – two lakes
• Diversion lakes – Lakes D2 and D3

43

Plankton – Conceptual AEMP Design

44

Waterb Waterbody

• dy

Rationale Rationale Timing Timing Sampling Depth Sampling Depth Sample Sample Type Type

• No. of
• No. of

Samples Samples per per Sta Statio ion

• No. of
• No. of

Stations Stations Frequency Frequency Lake N11 Lake N11 verify prediction of no change in construction; monitor effect of potential change in water quality in operations 3 open- water euphotic zone (phytoplankton) full-depth (zooplankton) composite (phytoplankton) single haul (zooplankton) 2 5 annual Lakes D2, Lakes D2, D3 D3 monitor potential effect of increase in nutrient concentrations from flooding of surrounding land 3 open- water 2 5 annual Area 8 Area 8 verify prediction of no change in construction; monitor effect of potential change in water quality in operations 3 open- water 2 5 annual Referenc Reference Lake e Lake #1 #1 reference lake 3 open- water 2 5 annual Referenc Reference Lake e Lake #2 #2 reference lake 3 open- water 2 5 annual

Evaluating Effects on Plankton

Effects due to Project Activities:

• Toxicity of operational discharge or mine structures
• Nutrient enrichment from operational discharge or mine

structures  increased primary productivity The effects on plankton will be assessed by comparing to:

• 1. Baseline data
• 2. EIS predictions
• 3. Reference lakes

45

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates

46

• Sediment quality surveys in Kennady Lake in 1995 and 1996, 2004, and 2005
• Broader LSA surveys in 2010 and 2011
• Focused study in 2011

– Within lake variability of core lakes (Area 8, Lake N11, and Lake 410), reference

lake (East Lake), and downstream lakes (L and M lakes)

• Potential reference lakes (Reference Lake 2 and 3, East Lake) and diversion lakes

(Lakes D2 and D3) sampled in 2012 and 2013 General Findings

• Sediments mainly composed of fine-grained particles
• Low to moderate organic carbon content
• Concentrations of most metals in Kennady Lake bed

sediments are below sediment quality guidelines

47

Baseline – Sediment Quality

Baseline – Benthic Invertebrates

Baseline benthic invertebrate data collected since 1996 to support the environmental assessment and future AEMP 2011 Aquatic Resources Study

• Benthic invertebrate communities typical of sub-Arctic lakes and streams on

Canadian Shield with low abundance and high diversity

– Lakes: Chironomidae was most dominant group in terms of relative density – Streams: considerable variation in taxonomic composition between years and

among streams

• Lake 410 and Lake N11 had significantly higher total density and lower diversity

compared to East Lake (reference lake)

• More effort needed to determine appropriate reference lakes for core lakes

48

Baseline – Benthic Invertebrates

2013 Monitoring Programs 1. Supplemental Reference Lakes Program

• Two additional reference lakes (Reference Lakes 2 and 3) added in 2013

2. Downstream Program

• 5 stream stations (L and M streams) between Area 8 and Lake 410 sampled in 2013

49

Chironomidae

Baseline – Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic invertebrate community available for the following key waterbodies: Core lakes

• Kennady Lake (including Area 8) in 1996, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2011
• Lake N11 in 2011
• Lake 410 in 2004 and 2011

Reference lakes

• East Lake in 2011
• Reference Lakes 2 and 3 in 2013

Downstream lakes and streams

• Lake L2, M1, M2, M3, and M4 in 2011
• Streams K5, L1b, L1a, and L2 in 2005
• Streams K5, L2, L3, L3-1, M2, and M4 in 2007
• Streams L2, M1, M2, M3, and M4 in 2013

50

Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates – Conceptual AEMP Design

Monitoring will include:

• Monitoring during dewatering, operational discharge, and flow reduction
• Annual monitoring consisting of one sampling event in mid-August to early Sept
• Abundance, biomass and composition of benthic invertebrate communities
• Sediment quality will serve as an indicator of benthic invertebrate exposure to

contaminants and habitat quality Sampling locations during construction phase:

• Core lakes: Area 8, Lake N11
• Reference lakes: 2 reference Lakes
• Raised lakes: Lakes D2 and D3
• Streams: Area 8 outlet, L and M streams (benthos only)
• Sediment sampling for the SNP will also take place at SNP 01-01 in Lake N11

53

Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates – Conceptual AEMP Design

54

Wa Waterbody/ Wa Watercourse Rati Ration

• nale

Timi iming Samp Sampling Depth Depth Samp Sample Type Type Number o mber of Sample mples s pe per Station Station Num Number of

• f

Station Stations Freq Frequency La Lake N11 ke N11 SNP SNP 01-0 01-01(a)

(a)

monitor sediment quality near the point of discharge into Lake N11. 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 1 composite sediment TBD annual La Lake N11 N11 verify prediction of no change in construction; monitor effect of potential change in water quality in operations 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 6 benthic invertebrates 1 composite sediment 5 annual La Lakes kes D2, D2, D3 D3 monitor effect of increased water level 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 6 benthic invertebrates 1 composite sediment 5 distributed across the two lakes annual Area Area 8 8 verify prediction of no change in construction; monitor effect of potential change in water quality in operations 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 6 benthic invertebrates 1 composite sediment 5 annual Area Area 8 8 outle

• utlet stre

stream (Strea (Stream K5) K5) and and L L and and M M strea streams to support operational flow mitigation plan (no sediment sampling) 1 open-water TBD Surber 6 benthic invertebrates 5 annual Refe Reference La e Lake ke #1 #1 reference lake 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 6 benthic invertebrates 1 composite sediment 5 annual Refe Reference La e Lake ke #2 #2 reference lake 1 open-water TBD Ekman grab 6 benthic invertebrates 1 composite sediment 5 annual

Evaluating Effects on Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates

Effects due to Project Activities:

• Toxicity of operational discharge or mine structures
• Nutrient enrichment from operational discharge or mine structures  increased

primary productivity The effects on benthic invertebrates will be assessed by comparing to: 1. Baseline data 2. EIS/EIA predictions 3. Reference lakes The effects on sediment quality will be assessed by comparing to: 1. Baseline data 2. Sediment quality guidelines

55

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Fish Fish Habitat Fish Health

56

Fish Habitat - Baseline

Fish habitat assessments conducted for lakes and streams in Project area between 1996 and 2013:

• Habitat assessments conducted for Kennady

Lake, Lake N11, proposed reference lakes, raised lakes, and downstream lakes, including depth and substrate information

• Habitat characteristics collected for downstream

streams (e.g., width, channel/bank type, percentage of run/riffle/pool, bed material, potential for spawning/fish passage, flow)

• Assessment of habitat conditions and fish

passage at natural barriers to fish movement in streams downstream of Kennady Lake

57

Fish Habitat - Baseline

Lake habitat

• Nearshore area in lakes mostly boulder/cobble or

boulder/fines, limited aquatic vegetation

• In deeper lakes, the offshore habitats are mostly loose, fine

sediments Stream habitat

• The majority of streams are low gradient, with

boulder/cobble substrates and low to moderate fish habitat potential

• In spring, some streams provide habitat for Arctic grayling

spawning and northern pike spawning migrations

• Flows reduced in summer with many streams becoming

ephemeral and restricting large-bodied fish movement

• Natural barriers to fish movement present between Kennady

Lake and Lake 410

58

Fish Community - Baseline

59 Note: * = Area 8 only; AN = angling; EF = backpack electrofishing; ES = boat electrofishing; FF = fish fence; GN = gill netting; FN = fyke netting; MT= minnow trapping; ARGR = Arctic grayling; BURB = burbot; CISC = cisco; LKCH = lake chub; LKTR = lake trout; NNST = ninespine stickleback; NRPK = northern pike; RNWH = round whitefish; SLSC = slimy sculpin

Lake Lake Lake Lake Sampl Sampling ng Year Year (Met (Method hod) Fish Species Fish Species Capture Captured Core Lakes Core Lakes Kennady Lake 1996 (GN, MT), 1999 (GN, MT), 2004 (AN, EF, ES, GN, MT), 2005 (EF, FF), 2010 (GN), 2013* (EF, ES, MT, FN) ARGR, BURB, LKCH, LKTR, NNST, NRPK, RNWH, SLSC Lake N11 2011 (AN, EF, GN, MT), 2013 (EF, FF, MT, FN) BURB, LKCH, LKTR, LNSC, NNST, NRPK, SLSC Lake 410 2004 (GN), 2005 (EF, GN), 2007 (EF), 2013 (EF, ES, MT, FN) BURB, CISC, LKCH, LKTR, NRPK, RNWH, SLSC Referenc Reference e Lakes Lakes East Lake 2011 (AN, EF, GN, MT), 2012 (AN, EF, GN, MT), 2013 (EF, MT, FN), 2013 (EF, MT, FN) BURB, LKTR, LKWH, NNST, RNWH, SLSC Reference 2 2012 (AN, EF, GN, MT), 2013 (ES, MT, FN) BURB, LKTR, LKWH, LNSC, NRPK, RNWH, SLSC Reference 3 2012 (AN, EF, GN, MT), 2013 (EF, ES, MT, FN) BURB, LKTR, LNSC, NNST, RNWH, SLSC Di Divers versio ion L n Lakes Lake D2 2004 (EF, FF, GN), 2007 (EF, GN, MT), 2010 (GN, MT), 2013 (MT) NRPK Lake D3 2013 (AN, EF, ES, MT, GN) ARGR, BURB, NRPK, SLSC Lake A1 2002 (MT), 2004 (EF, GN), 2007 (EF, GN) Downstream Downstream Lakes Lakes Lake L3 2005 (GN), 2010 (GN, MT) NRPK Lake L2 2005 (EF, GN), 2010 (GN, MT) ARGR, NRPK Lake L1b 2005 (EF, GN) NRPK Lake L1a 2005 (EF, GN) ARGR, SLSC Lake M4 1996 (AN, GN, MT), 2005 (EF, GN) ARGR, CISC, LKCH, LKTR, NNST, RNWH, SLSC Lake M3 2005 (EF, GN) BURB, LKTR, NRPK, RNWH Lake M2 2005 (EF, GN) CISC, LKTR, NRPK, SLSC Lake M1 2005 (EF, GN) BURB, NRPK, RNWH

Fish Community - Baseline

60

Stream Stream Sampling Year Sampling Year (Met (Method hod) Fish Species Fish Species Capture Captured Stream K5 Stream K5 1996 (AN, EF), 1999 (EF), 2000 (FF), 2004 (FF), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF), 2013 (FF) ARGR, BURB, LKCH, LKTR, LNSC, NRPK, RNWH, SLSC Stream L3 Stream L3 1996 (EF), 1999 (EF), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, NRPK Stream L2 Stream L2 1999 (EF), 2000 (FF), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, LKTR, NNST, NRPK, SLSC Stream L1c Stream L1c 2007 (EF) SLSC Stream L1b Stream L1b 1999 (EF), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, SLSC Stream L1a Stream L1a 1996 (EF), 2004 (FF, MT), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF), 2013 (FF) ARGR, BURB, LKCH, LKTR LKTR, NRPK, SLSC Stream M4 Stream M4 2005 (FF), 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, LKTR, NRPK, SLSC Stream M3 Stream M3 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, NRPK, SLSC Stream M2 Stream M2 2005 (EF), 2007 (EF) BURB, LKCH, NNST, NRPK, SLSC Stream M1 Stream M1 2005 (EF, FF), 2007 (EF) ARGR, BURB, LKCH, LKTR, NRPK, RNWH, SLSC

Note: BOLD italics = first captured in 2013; AN = angling; EF = backpack electrofishing; FF = fish fence; MT= minnow trapping; ARGR = Arctic grayling; BURB = burbot; LKCH = lake chub; LKTR = lake trout; LNSC = longnose sucker; NNST = ninespine stickleback; NRPK = northern pike; RNWH = round whitefish; SLSC = slimy sculpin

Fish Health - Baseline

• Fish health surveys conducted in Kennady Lake, Lake N11, Lake

410, East Lake, and Kirk Lake between 2004 and 2012 to assess health of lake trout populations

– Fish health parameters generally similar among lakes, with the exception of

weight (i.e., fish were lighter in Kirk Lake relative to East Lake or Kennady Lake)

– Overall fish pathology was similar among lakes, with the most notable

• bservation being high rates of parasitism (i.e., cysts) being present in the body

cavity in association with fish tissues

• Small bodied fish survey conducted in Area 8, Lake N11, Lake 410,

East Lake, Reference Lake 2, and Reference Lake 3

– Lengths comparable within species among lakes – Tapeworms documented in lake chub from Area 8 and ninespine stickleback

from Reference lake 3

61

Fish Tissue Chemistry - Baseline

Large-bodied fish tissue sampling conducted in 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, and 2013

• Core lakes - Kennady Lake, Lake N11, and Lake 410
• Raised lakes – Lake D2, and Lake D3
• Reference lakes - East Lake, Reference Lake 2, and Reference Lake 3
• Additional baseline data from other lakes in LSA (e.g., Lake N16, Kirk Lake)
• Primarily lake trout (muscle and liver) in 1996-2012, northern pike (non-lethal muscle

tissue plugs) in 2013

Small-bodied fish sampling conducted in 2007, 2011, and 2013

–

2007: composite samples of slimy sculpin from lake outlet streams (Kennady, 410, N16, Kirk)

–

2011: composite samples of lake chub from Lake N11

–

2013: whole-body Lake chub (Area 8, Lake N11), slimy sculpin (East Lake, Reference Lake 2, Reference Lake 3, Lake D3) and ninespine stickleback (Reference Lake 3)

62

Fish Tissue Chemistry - Baseline

63

• Fish tissue chemistry

variable within and among years, similar among the core lakes

• Higher

concentrations in liver tissue

• Limited small-bodied

fish data

Mean metals concentration in fish tissue collected from the core lakes during baseline studies (1996, 1999, 2004 and 2011). Only samples above detection limits are included in the calculation of average concentrations.

Arsenic Zinc

Fish Tissue Chemistry - Baseline

• Comparable concentrations to

previous small bodied fish tissue baseline data concentrations (e.g. Lake N11 LKCH)

• Tissue chemistry generally similar

among lakes (e.g. zinc), few metals with higher variability among lakes (e.g., arsenic)

64

Arsenic Zinc

Mean metals concentration in small bodied fish whole-body samples collected from the core lakes, reference lakes and raised lakes during 2013. Samples where n > 10 are presented as modified box plots (25th, 75th percentiles & medians represented), samples where n < 10 are presented as individual samples.

Fish – Conceptual AEMP Design

Fish monitoring will include:

• fish health and fish tissue chemistry
• downstream fish movement and access
• Monitoring proposed every three years (consistent with other mines in the north)

Sampling locations will include:

• Core lakes – Lake N11 and Area 8 (fish health & fish tissue chemistry, small

bodied fish only)

• Reference lakes – two lakes (fish health & fish tissue chemistry, small bodied fish
• nly)
• Diversion lakes – Lake D2/D3 (fish tissue chemistry, large bodied fish only)
• Downstream of Area 8 to Lake 410 (snorkelling surveys for Arctic grayling fry, fish

fences to monitor fish community and movement)

69

Preliminary AEMP Design – Fish Component

70 Water body/ Watercourse Rationale Type of Survey Timing Sample Type Number of Samples per Station Number of Stations Frequency Lake N11 determine if there are changes in small-bodied fish health and fish tissue quality due to increased flow conditions in construction, and/or due to minor increase in TDS, metals or nutrients from early operational WMP discharge small-bodied fish health survey and fish tissue chemistry timing of survey dependent on species fish health, fish tissue FH: 30M, 30F, 30J SBF FT: 5 g composite SBF whole lake

• nce every 3

years Lakes D2, D3b determine if potential changes in water/sediment quality change fish tissue chemistry/quality fish tissue chemistry timing of survey dependent on species fish tissue FT: 5 g composite SBF whole lakes

• nce every 3

years Area 8 determine if there are changes in small bodied fish health and fish tissue quality due to isolation or dewatering discharge small-bodied fish health survey and fish tissue chemistry timing of survey dependent on species fish health, fish tissue FH: 30M, 30F, 30J SBF FT: 5 g composite SBF whole lake

• nce every 3

years Area 8 outlet stream (Stream K5) and L and M streams confirm habitat suitable for fry during dewatering; validate flow mitigation plan during operations Fry presence/ absence in construction; movement in

• perations

snorkelling survey in summer; fish fences in spring snorkelling in construction (summer); fish fences (spring) and snorkelling during

• perations

NA 5 annually, as appropriate Reference Lake #1 reference lake small-bodied fish health survey and fish tissue chemistry timing of survey dependent on species fish health, fish tissue FH: 30M, 30F, 30J SBF FT: 5 g composite SBF whole lake

• nce every 3

years Reference Lake #2 reference lake small-bodied fish health survey and fish tissue chemistry timing of survey dependent on species fish health, fish tissue FH: 30M, 30F, 30J SBF FT: 5 g composite SBF whole lake

• nce every 3

years

Evaluating Effects on Fish

Effects due to Project Activities:

• Changes to habitat and/or fish populations due to changes in flows
• Fish health affected by changes in water and sediment quality
• Fish tissue metals concentrations increasing from operational

discharges The effects on fish will be assessed by comparing to:

• 1. Baseline data
• 2. EIS Predictions
• 3. Reference lakes

71

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Other Topics

72

GK Project - Special Studies

• Occur as needed and/or as required

– To develop methods, or understand new issues

• May include research activities that support monitoring
• Focus on development of monitoring methods, further investigation
• f monitoring findings, or to fill data gaps, understand the

ecosystem

• For GK, proposed special studies may include:

– Freshet monitoring – linked to dust deposition (and air quality monitoring) – Others?

• De Beers will have access to results of special studies and on-going

work at other northern diamond mines, which will support this AEMP design

– TDS, strontium, nitrate studies, others?

73

GK Project - Conceptual AEMP Design Plan

Response Framework and Weight of Evidence

74

Response Framework

75

• Approach follows the “Draft Guidelines for Adaptive Management - A Response Framework for Aquatic Effects

Monitoring” (WLWB 2010)

• The presence and extent of effects are assessed by comparing measurement endpoints to benchmarks and/or

guidelines, as well indicators of natural variability, or the NORMAL RANGE

– Normal Range may be determined using baseline or reference lake data

• SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD: a level of change that, if exceeded, would result in a significant adverse effect; the “no go

condition”

– Defined a priori and based on value statements such as “water is safe to drink” – Significance Threshold for this example would be “water is not drinkable”, which would be an unacceptable change

• ACTION LEVEL: pre-defined level of environmental change or effect that would trigger certain types of management

actions if reached

– Linked to quantitative measures associated with changes to measurement endpoints – Proposed Action Level Groups, such as toxicological impairment, nutrient enrichment, and physical habitat alteration

Response Framework – Proposed Action Levels and Responses

Action Le

• n Level

Des escription cription Action

• n

Lo Low  e.g., significant difference between reference and exposure areas, or from baseline conditions, but below an applicable benchmark  e.g., increasing trend toward conditions

• utside of baseline or “normal” range, or

toward benchmark  prepare a Response Plan  notify MVLWB  confirm and investigate further (e.g., initiate special study)  evaluate ecological implications  compare to EIS predictions  identify potential mitigation options  set moderate and high action levels  re-evaluate benchmark and revise if necessary Moderat Moderate  e.g., significant difference between reference and exposure areas, or from baseline conditions, and benchmark exceeded  e.g., consistently increasing trend approaching benchmark exceedance  confirm and investigate further (e.g., initiate special study)  notify MVLWB  select mitigation and prepare plans  estimate effectiveness of mitigation  implement mitigation  update monitoring design  update Response Plan  compare to EIS predictions  evaluate ecological implications High High  e.g., benchmarks consistently exceeded, or effect is above predictions but below the significance threshold (b)  update Response Plan  identify and implement improved mitigation to reverse trend  notify MVLWB  remediate/restore

76

Hydrology - Proposed Action Levels

77

Ph Physica ysical Habita Habitat Alt t Altera rati tion Ac Action L Leve vel Wa Water L Level a and F Flow Negligible Negligible No changes in biological parameters as a result of changes in water level or flow beyond normal range Lo Low w Changes in biological parameters outside normal range that are consistent with effects related to increased water level (beyond EIS predictions) OR OR Changes in biological parameters outside normal range that are consistent with effects related to increased flow (beyond of EIS predictions) Moderat Moderate TBD High High TBD

The key information that will be necessary for action levels are as follows:

• Water Levels and Flows:

− differences between core

waterbodies and baseline normal range

− differences in Kennady Lake before

isolation and after reconnection

• Considerations for the Action Levels for

physical habitat alteration are:

− The Action Levels for water level and

flow consider changes to flows and water levels outside the predictions

• f the EIS that have the potential to

negatively affect fish habitat or community

Water Quality - Proposed Action Levels

78

Act Action Level n Level Toxico Toxicological Imp mpai airm rment Nutri Nutrient nt Enri Enrich chment nt Wate Water Qual r Quality ty Drinki Drinking Wa ng Water ter for for Hum Humans ns Substances of potential toxicological concern Measured toxicity at edge of mixing zone Negligibl gligible Concentration not exceeding AEMP benchmarks(b) where they exist, or if exceeding, not due to Mine(c) AND AND Within normal or reference range Drinking water parameters <75% Health Canada (HC)i human health and aesthetic drinking WQG AND AND Microcystin <75% of HC human health drinking WQG AND AND Drinking water parameters <75% CCME wildlife health WQG Consistent with EIS prediction AND AND If AEMP benchmark exists, within benchmark. No persistent sublethal toxic effects to test organisms in mixing zone samples Low Low Concentration greater than normal and reference range lake- wide supported by a temporal trend AND AND Concentration exceeds 75% of AEMP benchmark Drinking water parameter at any location is within 75% of HC human health or aesthetic drinking WQG OR OR Microcystin at any location is above 75% of HC human health drinking WQG OR OR Drinking water parameters at any location are above 75% of CCME wildlife health WQG Exceeding EIS Predictions supported by temporal trend AND AND Exceeding >75% AEMP Benchmark, if it exists Persistent sublethal toxic effects to test organisms in mixing zone samples. OR OR No sublethal toxic effects for fish in mixing zone samples Moder Moderate TBD TBD TBD High High TBD TBD TBD

Plankton - Proposed Action Levels

79

Action Le tion Level Toxico icologica

• gical Im

Impairme pairment nt Nutrient trient Enrichment Enrichment Negligible Negligible No persistent decline beyond the normal range in total phytoplankton biomass or cladoceran abundance and biomass No consistent ecologically significant changes in richness and community structure Lo Low w A decline beyond the normal range in total phytoplankton biomass OR A decline beyond the normal range in cladoceran abundance or biomass Persistent increase beyond the normal range in total phytoplankton or zooplankton biomass in waters AND Minor shift in phytoplankton or zooplankton community composition (based on major groups) in waters Mode Modera rate TBD TBD High High TBD TBD

Sediment Quality and Benthic Invertebrates - Proposed Action Levels

80

Toxicolo xicological I gical Impairment pairment

Ac Action L Leve vel Sediment Qua ment Quality ity Bent enthic C ic Communit unity Negligible Negligible Concentration not exceeding AEMP benchmarks where they exist, or if exceeding, not due to Mine AND Within normal or reference range lake-wide No statistically significant changes below normal range for richness and densities of dominant taxa AND No divergence of trends in richness and densities of dominant taxa Lo Low w Concentration exceeding AEMP benchmarks as a result of the Mine AND Greater than normal range Statistically significant changes extending below the normal range for richness OR Statistically significant changes in density of dominant taxa extending below the normal range OR Downward trend in richness and densities of dominant taxa, but not in reference lakes Moderat Moderate TBD TBD High High TBD TBD

Benthic Invertebrates - Proposed Action Levels

81

Nutrient E Nutrient Enrichment richment

Ac Action L Leve vel Benthic Community Negligible Negligible No statistically significant changes extending above normal range for richness and densities of dominant taxa AND No divergence of trends in richness and densities of dominant taxa compared to reference lakes Lo Low w Statistically significant changes extending above the normal range for richness OR Statistically significant changes in densities of dominant taxa extending above the normal range OR Upward trend in richness and densities of dominant taxa, but not in reference lakes Moderat Moderate TBD High High TBD

Fish Habitat/Health/Tissue Chemistry - Proposed Action Levels

82

Acti Action

• n

Level Level Toxicologi Toxicological cal Impairment mpairment Nutrient Nutrient Enrichme Enrichment nt Physical Habitat hysical Habitat Fish ish Consumpt Consumption by ion by Humans Humans Neg Negligibl igible No statistically significant changes in fish health endpoints

• r tissue chemistry beyond the

normal range AND Changes are of magnitude that would not indicate an impairment to fish health No changes in fish health endpoints or fish tissue chemistry in Snap Lake beyond the normal range AND Changes are of a magnitude that would not indicated an impairment to fish health No changes in biological parameters as a result of changes in water level or flow beyond normal range Taste and texture good (TK input) AND AND Metals in edible fish tissue below 75% of upper limit of normal range Low Low Statistically significant difference in fish health endpoints or fish tissue chemistry that is beyond normal range AND Change is in direction, and of magnitude, that is indicative of an impairment to fish health Statistically significant difference in fish health endpoints or fish tissue chemistry that is beyond normal range AND Change is in direction, and of magnitude, that is indicative of an impairment to fish health Changes in biological parameters

• utside normal range that are

consistent with effects related to increased water level (beyond EIS predictions) OR Changes in biological parameters

• utside normal range that are

consistent with effects related to increased flow (beyond of EIS predictions) Fish taste and/or texture not acceptable. OR OR Metals in edible fish tissue above 75% of upper limit of normal range. Moder Moderate TBD TBD TBD TBD High High TBD TBD TBD TBD

Weight of Evidence

Evaluate the results from each component Apply W Apply Weight of Evidence Ev eight of Evidence Evaluation aluation

• This is the process to determine if any change in the environment

due to Project activities represents an adverse ecological effect

• A systematic and transparent method for integrating measured

data and observations from the AEMP

• Provides the basis for a more detailed assessment to determine

cause and necessary mitigation

83

Weight of Evidence and Response Framework

• Weight of evidence integrates AEMP results and determines support for Impact Hypotheses
• Response Framework links monitoring results to management actions in a systematic way

– Purpose to maintain Assessment Endpoints, which are based on the Valued Components, within an acceptable range

84

Weight of Evidence

• Weight of Evidence

(WOE) approach

– Integrates the AEMP

findings

– Determines the

strength of support for each Impact Hypothesis

– Helps identify which

Action Level Groups have been triggered (i.e., nutrient enrichment, toxicological impairment, or physical habitat alteration)

– Supports decision-

making in the event that management responses are warranted

85

Weight of Evidence Endpoint Groups and Measurement Endpoints

Hypothesis Hypothesis Ecosyst Ecosystem Component em Component Exposure xposure Endpoint Endpoint Group Group Fiel Field Bio d Biologi

• gical

cal Responses Responses Endpoint Group Endpoint Group Toxicologi Toxicological Impairment cal Impairment

Plankton Community Water Quality (potential toxicants) Plankton Community Indicators Benthic Invertebrate Community Sediment Quality AND Water Quality (potential toxicants) Benthic Community Indicators Fish Fish Tissue Chemistry AND Water Quality (potential toxicants) Fish Health Indicators AND Fish Presence

Nutrient Nutrient Enrichme Enrichment nt

Plankton Community Water Quality (nutrients) Plankton Community Indicators Benthic Invertebrate Community Water Quality (nutrients, including chlorophyll a) Benthic Community Indicators Fish Water Quality (nutrients, including chlorophyll a and plankton and benthic invertebrate biomass) Fish Health Indicators AND Fish Presence

Physical H al Habitat A t Alte teration tion

Hydrology Water Quality (i.e., TSS) AND Water Level and Flow n/a Plankton Community n/a Plankton Community Indicators Benthic Invertebrate Community n/a Benthic Community Indicators Fish Fish Habitat Quality and Quantity Fish Presence

86

Hydrology - Measurement Endpoints

87

Endpo Endpoint Gr nt Group

• up

Ev Evaluation Crit aluation Criteria f eria for r Meas asurement urement E Endpoint dpoint Re Results No R No Response esponse Rating 1 Rating 1 ↑/↓ Rating 2 Rating 2 ↑↑/↓↓ Rating 3 Rating 3 ↑↑↑/↓↓↓ Expos Exposure ure – – Hydr drology

• logy

(includes w (includes water r le levels, ls, flo flow rat rates) s) Comparison to (Baseline) Normal Range (water level and flow) No difference Difference in hydrology relative to baseline Different from EIS predictions Rating 2 in all endpoints

Water Quality - Measurement Endpoints

88

End ndpoint Gr

• int Group
• up

Evaluation C uation Crit iteria f eria for r Mea Measurement E urement Endpoint

• int

Results lts No R No Response sponse Ratin Rating 1 1 ↑/↓ Ratin Rating 2 2 ↑↑/↓↓ Ratin Rating 3 3 ↑↑↑/↓↓↓ Expo Exposu sure re – – Wat ater Quali er Quality (includ ncludes p potentia ntial l toxican xicants and mixi s and mixing zone t zone toxici xicity ty measu measuremen ent t endp endpoints, ts, as as well ll as as nut nutrient nt m measurement surement end endpoint points a and p potential ntial change changes due t s due to

• ph

physi ysical al ha habi bitat a t alteration, e.g., ion, e.g., TSS) TSS) Comparison to (Baseline) Normal Range No difference Difference in mean concentration Waterbody mean greater than (Baseline) Normal Range Rating 2 in at least two evaluation criteria. OR OR Rating 1 in a downstream lake (for nutrients only) Comparison to AEMP Benchmarks (where they exist) Less than EIS prediction Greater than AEMP benchmark(b) Greater than site- specific guideline Evaluation of Temporal Trends (once appropriate amount of data have been collected over time) No difference Trend difference between waterbody and reference waterbodies Trend difference

• utside confidence

interval (if applicable) Assessment of Toxicity at edge of Mixing Zone (SNP data) No persistent toxicity Sublethal toxicity observed at edge of mixing zone in 2

• r more consecutive

monitoring events Persistent sublethal toxicity with trend to increasing in frequency

• r severity

Plankton - Measurement Endpoints

89

Endpoin Endpoint Gr Group Evaluation C Evaluation Crit iteria f eria for r Measurem urement ent E Endpo dpoint nt Re Results No No R Resp sponse Rati Rating 1 1 ↑/↓ Rati Rating 2 2 ↑↑/↓↓ Rati Rating 3 3 ↑↑↑/↓↓↓

Fiel Field Biol d Biolog

• gical

ical Resp sponse ses – s – Plan Plankton Commu Community (includ ncludes es p plankt ankton

• n

commu community ity measu measuremen ent t end endpoint

• ints)

s) Comparison to (Baseline) Normal Range No difference Difference (mean vs. mean) outside the normal range Exceeding EIS predictions Rating 2 in at least two evaluation criteria Comparison to Reference Lakes No difference Statistically significant increase in waterbody Statistically significant increase beyond normal range Evaluation of Community Structure No difference Minor shift in community structure (i.e., at species/genus level) Moderate shift in community structure (i.e., at class or functional group level) Evaluation of Temporal Trends(a) (once appropriate amount of data have been collected over time) No trend difference Trend difference between waterbody and reference Trend difference outside confidence interval (if applicable)

Sediment Quality and Benthos - Measurement Endpoints

90

Endpoint Group Endpoint Group Evaluation Criter Evaluation Criteria ia for for Measurement Measurement Endpoint Endpoint Result Results No Response No Response Rating 1 Rating 1 ↑/↓ Rating 2 Rating 2 ↑↑/↓↓ Rating 3 Rating 3 ↑↑↑/↓↓↓ Exposure – Exposure – Sediment ediment Quality Quality (includes p ncludes potential tential toxic toxicant nt measurement measurement endpoint endpoints) s) Comparison to (Baseline) Normal Range No difference Difference in mean concentration Waterbody mean greater than baseline normal range Rating 2 in at least two evaluation criteria. Comparison to Reference Lakes No difference Statistically significant increase in waterbody Statistically significant increase beyond normal range Comparison to Benchmarks (where they exist) Less than ISQG Greater than ISQG Greater than PEL Evaluation of Temporal Trends(a) (once appropriate amount of data have been collected over time) No trend Statistically significant increasing trend in waterbody Statistically significant increasing trend in waterbody, at a magnitude of toxicological concern(e) Fiel Field Bio d Biolog

• gical

cal Responses Responses – – Benthi enthic Community Community (includes benthic (includes benthic inverteb invertebrat rate community community measurement measurement endpoint endpoints) s) Comparison to (Baseline) Normal Range No difference Statistical difference in mean concentration relative to baseline Waterbody mean greater than normal range Rating 2 in at least two evaluation criteria Comparison to Reference Lakes No difference Statistical difference between waterbody and reference water bodies Statistical difference beyond normal range Evaluation of Community Structure No difference Minor shift in community structure (i.e., at genus level) Moderate shift in community structure (i.e., at major group level) Evaluation of Temporal Trends(a) (once appropriate amount of data have been collected over time) No difference Trend difference between waterbody and reference waterbodies Trend difference outside confidence interval (if applicable)

Fish Habitat/Fish Health/Fish Tissue Chemistry - Measurement Endpoints

91

En Endpoi dpoint Gro nt Group Eval Evaluat uation Crit

• n Criter

eria for ia for Measurement urement Endpoint Endpoint Res Results No No R Respon sponse se Rating 1 ting 1 ↑/↓ Rating 2 ting 2 ↑↑/↓↓ Rating 3 ting 3 ↑↑↑/↓↓↓ Field B eld Biolog logical cal Res Respons

• nses –

s – Fish ish Ha Habit bitat a t and d Co Communit mmunity Com Compar arison son to Basel to Baseline (where they exist) No observed changes Observed changes relative to baseline Different from EIS predictions Rating 2 in all endpoints Field B eld Biolog logical cal Res Respons

• nses –

s – Fish Heal ish Health (incl (includes des fish heal fish health me measurement urement e endp dpoi

• ints)

nts) Fish Heal Fish Health No difference Statistical difference between waterbody and reference waterbodies Statistical difference beyond normal range To be developed Expos Exposure – – Fish ish Tissue Tissue Ch Chemistr istry y (i (includes p ludes potent tential ial toxicant me xicant measurement urement endpoints) dpoints) Wat Waterbody

• dy com
• mpar

pared to d to (B (Baseline) No eline) Normal rmal Range nge No difference Statistical difference in mean concentration relative to baseline Waterbody mean greater than normal range Rating 2 in both evaluation criteria Compar mparis ison t

• n to R

Reference ference Lakes Lakes No difference Statistical difference in mean concentration between waterbody and reference waterbodies Waterbody mean greater than normal range

GK Project – AEMP Path Forward

Another workshop before public hearings? Site workshops summer 2014? Ni Hadi Yati connection?

92

GK Project – Conceptual AEMP Design Plan – Follow-up

Permitting and Contact: Veronica Chisholm – De Beers Veronica.Chisholm@debeerscanada.com (867) 688-8701 Craig Blackie – De Beers Craig.Blackie@debeerscanada.com (867)688-7904 Technical Team Contact: John Faithful – Golder John_Faithful@golder.com (403) 513-3529 Zsolt Kovats – Golder Zsolt_Kovats@golder.com (403) 299-5629

93