Potential impacts of airborne particulates on caribou in Canadas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Potential impacts of airborne particulates on caribou in Canada’s Arctic: ways of impact, monitoring methods, early results, & key challenges

Wenjun Chen1, Sylvain G. Leblanc1, H. Peter White1, Christine Rock2, Brian Milakovic2, Greg Sharam2, Harry O’Keefe3, Laura Corey3, Bruno Croft4, Jan Adamczewski4, Jody S. Pellissey5, Boyan Tracz5, Jessica Hume6, Anne Gunn7, and John Boulanger8

1 Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, NRCan, Ottawa,

Wenjun.chen@Canada.ca

2 Environmental Resources Management Ltd., Vancouver 3 Dominion Diamond Ekati Corporation, Calgary 4 Environment and Natural Resources, GNWT, Yellowknife 5 Wek'èezhìi Renewable Resources Board, Yellowknife 6 Tlicho Government, Behchoko

7 CircumArctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment Network

8 Integrated Ecological Research Ltd., Nelson

SGP wildlife Monitoring workshop 2018

Background

Boulanger et al. (2012) estimated the zone of influence (ZOI) around the Ekati-Diavik mining complex to be 14 km using caribou survey data One possible mechanism for ZOI was suggested to be the dispersion of airborne particulates from the mining complex

Figure 7. Mean total suspended particles (TSP) levels (kg/ha/year) as a function of distance from the Ekati-Diavik mine complex during 2003-2008. The mine complex included Misery Road and Fox Pit. Estimates are based on CALPUFF model predictions (Rescan 2006).

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Dustfall (TSP levels (kg/ha/year) Distance from EKati/Diavik Mines (km)

How exactly might airborne particulates have impacted caribou’s movement behaviour & health, and thus the ZOI? Theoretically there could have 3 potential ways of impacts:

• Deposition (dry and/or wet) may influence caribou
• forage. Caribou may taste the difference in forage and

respond

• Caribou may see a dust plume from a mining road and

move away from it.

• Caribou may smell the difference in air quality and

react accordingly. Many unanswered questions.

• Total Suspended Particulate (TSP): Airborne solid and

liquid particles for the entire size range, whose coarse components may deposit within seconds to minutes

• PM2.5: Airborne microscopic solid or liquid particles with

a diameter < 2.5 micrometers, which may stay in the air for weeks

• Dry deposition: The deposition of coarse particulates as

they settle out of the atmosphere continually due to gravity, the main mechanism with which coarse components of particulates deposit (e.g., dustfall measured with dust trapper)

• Wet deposition: The deposition of particulates as they

settle out of the atmosphere due to precipitation, the main mechanism with which PM2.5 deposit

Terms related to airborne particulate matter

Monitoring methods and early results for the 1st potential way of impact: changed forage quality due to dustfall Monitoring variables:

• Dustfall rate (DDEC)
• TSS in snow (DDEC)
• Soil pH (this study)
• Amount of dust on leaves (this study)
• Vegetation % cover (this study)

Dustfall monitored at different distances from a haul road by DDEC

Dustfall rate in the summer (DDEC air quality

report for 2012-14)

5 10 15 20 25 500 1000 1500

Mean dust deposition (mg/ dm2 /d) Distance from the Misery Road in 2014 (m)

Background rate at AQ49 and AQ54, 19 and 34 km resepctively from the Pigeon Pit

Comparison of dustfall results between Rescan model and DDEC monitoring

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Dustfall (TSP) levels (kg/ha/year) Distance from EKati/Diavik Mines (km)

Background dustfall during June 15 and September 15 Annualized background dustfall using monthly TSP concentration at the Main camp as the scaling factor

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 15-Jan 15-Jul 14-Jan 15-Jul 14-Jan 15-Jul Monthly mean concentration (mg m-3) Date TSP at the main camp PM2.5 at the main camp 2012 2013 2014

Seasonal changes at the Ekati main camp (DDEC air quality report for 2012-14)

Total suspended solids in snow

(DDEC air quality report for 2012-14) Most elemental concentrations are below established background concentrations observed (1998-2011) at the CAPMoN station Snare Rapids. The exceptions are for the sampling locations < 1 km to mining activity and occasional outliers.

Soil pH measurement

Dust deposition effect on soil pH

R² = 0.9012

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Soil pH of the dwarf shrub class Distance from the nearest disturbance source (m)

Transects from the Misery Haul Road

3 4 5 6 7 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Transect from the Misery Camp

Measurement method for the amount of dust on leaves

Dust on leaves

Distance range (m) Ratio to the average value

• ver sites > 1500 m

<10 8.8 10-100 6.1 100-500 4.2 500-1000 2.6 1000-1500 1.1 >1500 1.0

Caribou forage availability: visual estimation and digital photo analysis

Effect on lichen

10 20 30 40 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Lichen % cover of the dwarf shrub class (%) Distance from the nearest disturbance source (m)

Transects from the Misery Haul Road

10 20 30 40 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Transect from the Misery Camp

Relationship between soil pH on lichen % cover

Hood river y = 0.0672x4 - 2.2663x3 + 28x2 - 151.03x + 302.49 R² = 0.4088 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lichen % cover of the dwarf shrub class (%) Soil pH Transects from the Misery Haul Road Transect from the Misery Camp

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Vascular % cover of the dwarf shrub class (%) Distance from the nearest disturbance source (m) Transects from the Misery Haul Road Transect from the Misery Camp

Effect on vascular plants

Relationship between soil pH & vascular % cover

Hood river 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vascular % cover of the dwarf shrub class (%) Soil pH Transects from the Misery Haul Road Transect from the Misery Camp

Summary: 1st potential way of impact

• Convergence of evidences suggested that the zone of dust

and zone of affected vegetation are about 1 from a busy haul road

• Dustfall (DDEC): ~ 1 km
• Total suspended solids in snow (DDEC): ~ 1 km
• Soil pH (this study): ~ 1 km
• Dust on leaves (this study): ~ 1 km
• Lichen % cover (this study): ~ 1 km
• Lichen chemistry (DDEC): highest concentrations occur

within 1 km of roads, with elevated levels within 10-30

• km. Lots information but hard to compare directly
• TSP vs. elements
• Relationships with distance differ for different elements
• Mainly dry deposition near road & wet deposition > 1 km?

Monitoring methods and early results for the 2nd potential way of impact: caribou’s sight of a dust plume Monitoring variables

• Atmospheric visibility (DDEC)
• Effect of topography (this study)
• In-situ survey (this study)

Atmospheric visibility (based on weather records at the Ekati Airport)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 5 10 15 20 25

Atmospheric visibility (%)

Distance (km)

Elevation measurement: differential GPS units, accurate at cm scale

Visibility of a road dust plume (8 m high)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 Mean % of road dusts visbible to caribou Distance (km) Fitted line Visibility criteria

Summary: 2nd potential way of impact

• Early results indicated that the zone of

visibility of a dust plume by caribou is about 2-3 km

• Remaining challenges:

– Effect of threshold selection – Potential difference between human and caribou visions

Monitoring methods and early results for the 3rd potential way of impact: smell or in-hale airborne particulate matter Monitoring variables

• Spatial gradients of TSP or PM2.5

(representing a gradual and small change)

• High concentration plumes of TSP or

PM2.5 (representing a sudden and large change)

Simulated spatial gradient of 24-h TSP concentration (Rescan 2006)

Simulated spatial gradient of 24-h PM2.5 concentration (Rescan 2006)

Gradient

High concentration plume

DDEC long term monitoring Satellite mapping (MODIS) Field survey

Monitoring methods

(DUSTTRACK II Aerosol Monitor 8532)

Did monitoring data show the gradients and high concentration plumes?

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Mean PM2.5 (mg m-3)

Distance the Misery Camp (m)

2016 and 2017 field transect survey didn’t find a reducing spatial gradient of PM2.5 from a mine

• peration

Temporal variations

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 09:23:02 10:06:14 10:49:26 11:32:38 12:15:50 12:59:02

TSP, 1 m from a road on the main camp (mg m-3) Time in August 4, 2017

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 12:40:45 12:41:28 12:42:12 12:42:55 12:43:38 12:44:21

Background concentration High concentration plume

Fast fluctuation in background concentration + high concentration plumes

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12:39:36 12:41:02 12:42:29 12:43:55 12:45:22

TSP, 14.7 km E-NE from the ain camp (mg m-3) Time, August 4, 2017 Fast fluctuation in background concentration, without high concentration plumes between breathes at 14.7 km site

Background PM2.5 change during 2016 field survey period

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 Background PM2.5 (mg m-3) Julian day in 2016

Rain Rain

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 Background concentration (mg m-3) Julian day in 2017 TSP PM2.5

Build-up of background TSP and PM2.5 between rain events in 2017 field survey period

Rain Rain Forest fire smoke

Simultaneous measurements are needed to quantify the spatial gradients

Two possible methods:

• Satellite images that allow simultaneous
• bservations at all locations within its

coverage (e.g., MODIS depth of aerosol)

• need to convert to ground level TSP and

PM2.5, which in turn needs meteorological data, in-situ PM2.5 and TSP measurements, and their ratio

• Simultaneous in-situ PM2.5 (or TSP)

measurements near a source and at a distance

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: July 31, 2000 1 day after the last rain event: Date: July 30, 2000 Type: light rain Before Ekati full production in 2003

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: July 27, 2004 4 days after the last rain event: Date: July 23, 2004 Type: rain

Jul 21 2006

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: July 21, 2006 2 days after the last rain event: Date: July 18-19, 2004 Type: rain

Aug 20 2006

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: August 20, 2006 3 days after the last rain event: Date: September 17, 2006 Type: rain

Sept 19 2006

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: September 19, 2006 7 days after the last rain event: Date: September 12, 2006 Type: rain

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: August 20, 2010 0 days after the last rain event: Date: August 20, 2010 Type: light drizzle

Atmospheric TSP

Examples of satellite observed map of atmospheric TSP

Image date: July 22, 2012 4 days after the last rain event: Date: July 17-18, 2012 Type: rain

Atmospheric TSP

Atmosph Atmospheric eric TS TSP P vs da vs days after ys after rain ain 0 day 1 day 3 days 2 days 4 days 4 days 7 days after the last rain event. Note images were from different dates and years.

AQI Category 24-hr mean PM2.5 Concentration (mg/m3) Good 0.0 – 12.0 Moderate 12.1 – 35.4 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 35.5 – 55.4 Unhealthy 55.5 – 150.4 Very Unhealthy 150.5 – 250.4 Hazardous 250.5 – 500

Updated 2012 EPA PM2.5 and air quality standard NWT stand NWT standar ard: d: 28 28 mg g m-3, , simi similar lar to tha to that t for

• r USG in EP

USG in EPA A stan standa dard d

Standard for the zone of elevated PM?

Or Or s simpl imply y abo bove e the the ba backg kgrou

• und

nd le level? el?

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 15:48:58 15:50:24 15:51:50 15:53:17 15:54:43 15:56:10 PM2.5 concentration 5 m from the Pegion Road near the lunch room (mg m-3) Time, August 2, 2017

High concentration dust plumes measured near a haul road (source: dust)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12:40:19 12:43:12 12:46:05 12:48:58 12:51:50 PM2.5, Pigeon lunch room parking lot (mg m-3) Time, August 7, 2017

High concentration plumes from engine-on parked trucks in a calm period

A high concentration plume could also resulted from forest fire smoke

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 Background concentration (mg m-3) Julian day in 2017 TSP PM2.5

Forest fire smoke, Aug. 11

According to meteorology records

MODIS Aug 10, 2017 Flight from Ekati to Calgary, Aug 11

Summary: 3rd potential way of impact

• Large temporal variations (second level, between

rain events, and seasonal) were observed

• These temporal variations can easily masked the

spatial gradients of TSP and PM2.5 quantified using transect survey

• Simultaneous measurements of TSP and PM2.5

near a source and at a distance are essential in

• rder to quantify the spatial gradients and high

concertation plumes

• High concentration plumes could also sourced

from forest fire smokes, in addition to local mining sources. Distinguishing different sources is critically important

Key challenges & next steps

• To conduct simultaneous in-situ PM2.5 and TSP

measurements near a source and at a distance (down wind preferably)

• To quantify these spatial gradients and high

concentration plumes using MODIS data and in- situ measurements (meteorology data, PM2.5 and TSP measurements, and their ratios)

• To determine what standard should be used for

quantifying the zone of elevated PM concentration

• To distinguish the source(s) for these high

concentration plumes using meteorological records, and satellite images.

Acknowledgement

• DDEC wildlife technicians:

Matt Hoover, Cody Drygeese, Jeff Mantla, Eli Nasogaluak, Misty Sinclair, Lawrence Goulet

• NRCan coop students:

Anumeet Garcha, Charlotte Kelly, Holden Ciufo, Colin Werle