Information Request 13.1

Fish and Fish Habitat

Scoping - Spatial boundaries

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.3.5, p. 21 (PDF 26) - Section 2.6.1.5, p. 36 (PDF 41) EIS Main Report - Section 2.4, p. 2.7 (PDF 168) - Section 6.2.4.1, p. 6.65 (PDF 571)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-30

Rationale:

As described in the EIS Guidelines, characterization of fish habitat should be within the context of the local and regional subwatershed areas.

The Regional Study Area selected (east end of Lake Superior and the whole Pic River) is too large in terms of assessing effects on the aquatic environment and not similar to the affected water bodies in the SSA.

In describing the importance of fish habitat in the lower watersheds of streams 2 & 3, comparison is made to the whole Pic River watershed, with the statement that these streams are only 0.1% of the drainage. A comparison to Lake Superior or Pic River implies that there is relevant survey data from those water bodies that apply to this study area. As there is no rationalization of this scale and no data to support using this scale, the comparison does not appear to be justified.

Information Request: Justify the use of the whole of the Pic River watershed as the comparison for the assessment of the effects on the aquatic environment.

SCI RESPONSE

For the purpose of the EIS, the RSA for the proposed Project included the Pic River watershed. The Pic River will receive drainage from the Mine Rock Storage Area. The watershed scale was selected as the RSA as many of the fish species of interest including Lake Sturgeon, Steelhead and salmon, have seasonal (migratory) ranges that bring them from Lake Superior into areas well upstream of the Project site in the Pic River watershed. Lake Sturgeon move extensively up and down the Pic River during spawning migration and utilize the lower river for foraging (Section 3.8.1, Aquatic Resource Baseline Report [SID #1]). Salmonids rely directly and indirectly upon habitats at each of the spatial scales assessed for the purposes of the EIS, including the RSA. In addition, the Northern Brook Lamprey, are reported to occur within lower sections of the Pic River, well downstream of the Project site.

Thought was given to adopting alternative scales on which to assess effects at the regional level. One alternative was based on provincial fisheries management zones. The proposed Project, as well as the entire Pic River watershed is situated in Ontario Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ) 7 within the Lake Superior watershed. FMZ 7 encompasses approximately 61,500 km2. Currently, FMZ 7 does not have a Fisheries Management Plan, nor a Fisheries Management Advisory Council. There was little specific information at the management zone level on which to base an assessment and utilizing the whole management zone for that purpose seemed inappropriate given that the zone is more than ten-times the surface area of the Pic River watershed.

Another alternative way by which the relative importance of fish habitat in Streams 2 and 3 can be can be assessed is by considering comparable 1st and 2nd order Pic River tributaries between Kagiano River and Lake Superior. The Kagiano River defines the upstream migration barrier to fish movement in the Pic River. A total of 63 1st or 2nd order tributaries were identified using 1:50,000 topographic maps. It is assumed for this purpose that permanent surface water features identified on 1: 50:000 topographic maps represent permanent flowing water streams that provide comparable habitat. The total length of these low order streams was approximately 226.5 km. Stream 2 represents 1.6 % of the number of tributaries and 2.6 % of the length of tributaries.

Stream 3 does not appear as a blue line on the 1:50,000 topographic map, but a review of map contours suggested the likely occurrence of up to 29 similar areas where seasonal flows, would be expected. Stream 3 would represent 3.4 % of the number of seasonal tributaries that occur in the stretch of the Pic River between Lake Superior and the Kagiano River.

Within the area of comparison, between Kagiano River and Lake Superior, ten 3rd order or higher steams that are tributaries of the Pic River are also present. The higher order streams afford a greater quantity, and likely better quality of habitats for Pic River fish, including and in particular migratory salmonid species, than the conditions prevailing in Streams 2 and 3.

Re-analysis of the contribution of Streams 2 and 3 at different regional spatial scales does not change the conclusions of the EIS as it concerns the effects on fish and fish habitat. The effects analysis acknowledged an adverse effect, though a relatively minor one within the regional context. The conclusion would be the same regardless of which regional context is used. This effect will be mitigated through the final fish habitat compensation plan that will be implemented as part of the overall approval for the project. Information Request 13.2.1

Baseline Sampling

Methodologies Used

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.5: p. 36 (PDF 41) SID#1 - Section 2.3.1, p. 2.7 (PDF 29) - All tables dealing with fish sampling effort (PDF 158) - Section 3.5.15, p. 3.85 (PDF 116)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-6 MNR-A-5 MNR-A-7 MNR-A-8 MNR-A-9 MNR-A-10 MNR-A-11 MNR-A-14

Rationale:

The description of the methodologies by which the fish communities were surveyed are inadequate to determine whether or not the protocols used were appropriate. Concerns have been raised with the methodologies used for the following survey methods:  electrofishing;  seining;  nordic netting; and  Fall Walleye Index Netting.

Appropriate site and gear selection are important factors in ensuring the defensibility, comparability, and repeatability of a fisheries assessment survey. However, there does not appear to be a consistent or logical application of gear types and effort in these surveys. Moreover, when multiple gear types are deployed on the same water body at the same time (particularly on small ponds) there is the possibility that one protocol may have interfered with the other (e.g. electrofishing while nets are deployed).

Further, SID #1 indicates that some sites were surveyed by a “visual” method alone. While a visual observation is positive proof that a fish exists at a given site, it cannot be used to determine that fish do not exist at a site, unless the stream is dry at the time of observation (and even then, there are exceptions, such as lamprey ammocetes which could be buried in the mud).

Information Request Justify the selection of baseline sampling methodologies and discuss the implications of using the methods chosen rather than the methods identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in its comments to the Panel.

SCI RESPONSE

SCI disagrees with the premise that there was not consistent or logical application of gear types and effort in the baseline surveys. The baseline program focussed on the identification and distribution of fish species within surface water features (small lakes, ponds, connecting channels) within the footprint of the proposed mine and within surface water features that may be affected by the footprint of the mine by altered drainage patterns or by the release of mine-related drainage, for the purpose of the environmental assessment process. A primary focus of the baseline surveys was to provide information to determine the effects that would be caused by the loss of surface water features within areas proposed for development. With that in mind, the baseline program as it concerns most of the surface water features that were assessed, was less directed to survey repeatability once the mine became operational but rather to identifying fish distribution, since many of the localized surface water features that were assessed would be removed by the development of the mine.

Both active and passive gear types were used on a habitat-appropriate basis and for the most part surveys were conducted in multiple years and in multiple seasons. The timing of the sampling that was carried out in 2011 was done at the behest of Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff so that it would coincide with the spawning period of small fish (minnows). Small fish are most active at this time and are more likely to be captured by passive means (netting) than at other times of the year.

Concern has been expressed regarding the fact that multiple gear types were deployed on the same water body at the same time (particularly on small ponds) and that there is the possibility that one protocol may have interfered with the other (e.g. electrofishing while nets are deployed). While this may be the case in some situations, it was not the case at the Marathon site. As indicated above, the purpose of the fishing effort in particular in the small ponds within the Site Study Area was to identify fish presence and absence and not to create baseline information on which to compare post mine operations survey data. By and large these small ponds (and associated connecting channels) will not exist once the mine is developed and therefore the before-after comparison is moot. Rather than potentially detracting from the results of the sampling program the use of multiple gear types was intended to make the program more rigorous, as it increased the likelihood that fish, if present, would be collected.

Visual surveys were only used exclusively four locations. In each case the field crew went to the proposed sampling location, identified that each was a minor feature (e.g., had little water in it; was a series of small pools not connected by running water; was inundated by terrestrial vegetation), walked the feature to assess the extent of available habitat and made a decision not to extend further effort. These results were reported to the Project Team and it was decided that no further effort would be expended, as the locations at which visual surveys only were completed were beyond the potential footprint of the mine. Since the surveys were completed they were reported in SID #1. It is acknowledged that it would have been more helpful to provide more fulsome description of this in SID #1. SCI agrees that visual surveys alone are not appropriate as a sole assessment tool.

Where appropriate, SCI followed specific protocols to delineate fish presence and absence. In this case, we are specifically referring to identifying fish presence and absence as it concerns MMER Schedule 2. Under provisions of the MMER under the Fisheries Act it is possible through an amendment to Schedule 2 of the MMER to deposit mine waste in a fish bearing water body. A specific protocol is provided to guide this assessment, which includes recommendations for fishing effort for such things as how long a stream electrofishing reach should be or how much of a pond shoreline should be electrofished (Port et al., 2008). SCI developed its baseline fish survey program to be consistent with this guidance. In instances where effort may have deviated from the standard prescribed by Port et al. (2008) the exception was noted and explained. Most often this had to do with habitat limitations. For example, in some cases it was noted that the full recommended stream reach length was not fished either because of the presence of a barrier that prevented fish movement in the reach or because we simply ran out of wetted stream channel. It was and remains our view that these deviations did not affect the understanding of fish presence and absence in the mine footprint or related study area.

Questions have arisen as to whether the netting program at Hare Lake followed or was consistent with provincial protocols. SCI believes that the netting program was implemented in a manner consistent with the protocols. Only minor deviations are noted and these do not affect the quality of the data generated or the potential use of the results moving forward. The gillnetting effort on Hare Lake that was conducted in September 2011 was generally consistent with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Broad- scale Fish Community Monitoring Program. Key aspects of the program as it concerns the broad-scale protocol are highlighted below:

 According to Tables 4 and 5 on pages 9 and 10 of the protocol a minimum of two large mesh and two small mesh net sets in each of the 1 – 3, 3 – 6, 6 – 12 and 12 – 20 m depth strata were required. Additionally, a minimum of two sets of large mesh in the 20 – 35 m depth strata were also required to meet the protocol standards. In September 2011 there were four large mesh sets in the 1 – 3, 6 – 12 and 12 –20 m strata and three and five large mesh sets in the 20 – 35 and 3 –6 m strata, respectively. Also in September there were four small mesh sets in the 1 –3 and 3 – 6 m strata and two and six small mesh sets in the 12 –20 and 6 –12 m strata, respectively. This number of sets meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OMNR protocol.  The protocol states that fishing effort should occur when the surface water temperature exceeds 18 °C. The water temperature profile conducted on 08 September 2011 indicated a surface temperature of 18.62 °C meeting the minimum requirement. However, by the end of the survey the surface water temperature had decreased to around 17 °C.  The Broad-Scale Protocol indicates that nets should be set between 13:00 – 17:00 and lifted between 08:00 – 11:00. All of the nets set in September 2011 were set in the prescribed time period. The majority of the total 36 nets sets were also retrieved within the protocols timeframe, although admittedly one-third of nets were retrieved between 11:05 and 12:36.  The protocol states that all attempts should be made to confine net sets to a single stratum but that slight overlap is accepted. Generally, the net sets were confined to a single depth stratum with a few small exceptions. When this was the case the net was assigned to the stratum in which the majority of the net was set.  Table 6 on page 16 of the broad-scale manual provides the minimum data requirements for captured fish. This table states that fork length is the only requirement for all fish except the key species (i.e., Brook Trout, Lake Trout, Walleye and Smallmouth Bass). In September 2011 fish were generally processed in a manner consistent with the protocol. In fact, the minimum requirements were exceeded in most cases because body weight was measured on the majority of captured fish. A single exception is that the single clipped Lake Trout captured on the last day of the survey was released and not sacrificed for aging and sex.

There appears to be some confusion with respect to other netting protocols that may or may not been used as part of the baseline program based on terminology used in reporting. References to FWIN or Nordic Nets in SIDS #1, #29 and/or #30 were not meant to infer that the netting protocols associated FWIN or Nordic Nets were used; rather, these terms were used simply to refer to net types (mesh size, length, configuration) that were used. This has been subsequently clarified with MNR.

SCI has had discussions with agency staff about additional work that is planned to support the approvals process under the Fisheries Act (e.g., Section 35(2) approval for HADD). These additional data will provide further basis for establishing the scale of fisheries habitat compensation needs. Discussions regarding integrating standard MNR protocols into ongoing monitoring to further confirm baseline conditions have also occurred and will be implemented as part of the pre-operational survey that SCI committed to in Section 7.0 of the Main EIS Report.

References

Portt, C.B., G.A. Coker, N.E. Mandrak and D.L. Ming. 2008. Protocol for the detection of fish species at rick in Ontario Great Lakes Area (OGLA). Can. Sci. Ad. Sec. Res Doc. 2008/026. 31 p. Information Request 13.2.2

Confidence in Sampling Results

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.5, p. 36 (PDF 41) - Section 2.7.1, p. 43 (PDF 48) SID#1 - Section 3.9.2, p. 3.119 (PDF 150) - Section 3.1.8, p. 3.9 (PDF 40) - Section 3.5.18, p. 3.89 (PDF 120) - Figure 3.32, (PDF 197) SID#7 - Section 4.2.1, p. 4.2 (PDF 46)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-12

Rationale:

The mouth of Angler Creek (Stream 6) is located at Sturdee Cove, which is reported to contain spawning habitat for cold water fish species. The stream 6 watershed would be reduced by 50%, which could have an impact on fish in Sturdee Cove. However; no fish sampling was conducted in Sturdee Cove.

Lake 23 is one of the larger water bodies with a surface area of 10.46 hectares (ha) and a maximum depth of 10 metres (m). Fishing effort on August 12, 2009 did not identify any fish present. However, given the size and depth of the lake, the presence of fish seems likely. Additional effort may be needed to establish the presence or absence of fish and define the existing fish community.

The EIS also indicates that as a result of a perched culvert at the mouth of stream 1, the stream is underutilized by fish. Stream 1 was sampled on one occasion, and brook trout, rainbow trout and Chinook salmon were observed. The fact that brook trout, rainbow trout and Chinook salmon were observed in only one survey would suggest that the mouth of stream 1 may not be underutilized.

Information Request: Given the high degree of uncertainty in the sampling methodology and results of surveys to determine the presence or absence of fish, evidenced by comments received, discuss the level of confidence associated with the results and explain how uncertainty associated with results has been addressed. In particular, provide information relating to the following surveys:  Lake 5 and 23 sampling at depth;  Sturdee Cove; and  Streams 1 & 2.

SCI RESPONSE

SCI disagrees with the premise that there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the fisheries information. This has subsequently been discussed and clarified with MNR. By and large fishing effort included sampling in multiple seasons, in multiple years and with multiple gear types across the study area (see IR 13.2.1). The information collected was adequate to characterize potential effects for the purposes of the environmental assessment process and there is a high degree of confidence in the data as they concern fish presence/absence, distribution and habitat use. Some additional data collections are planned largely to support the fish habitat compensation planning process. Specific information pertaining to particular water bodies identified in the IR is provided below.

Lake 5 – Lake 5 was sampled in 2006, 2007 and 2009 with gillnets of varying mesh sizes and water depths of up to approximately 11 metres. Minnow traps were also used in shallow near-shore areas. The same fish species (Lake Chub) was collected on each occasion suggesting that it is the only fish species present. Oxygen levels were below 1 mg/L both during summer and winter at depths below 10 m, a strong indication that the deeper portions of Lake 5 do not provide usable fish habitat throughout most of the year. This includes the time of the year when the netting on Lake 5 was completed, which provides further evidence Lake Chub is the only fish species present. We believe that the effort expended in Lake 5 has adequately characterized the fish community and additional effort would not yield new information that would be useful for the purpose of the environmental assessment process. Lake 5 is outside the immediate zone of influence of the mine in any event and no effects are predicted.

Lake 23 – Limited exploratory effort was expended in Lake 23 in 2009 coincident with the ongoing development of the mine plan. Similar effort was expended initially across the project site to gain a basic understanding of existing conditions. Subsequent sampling was not conducted in Lake 23 as it became clear that the lake was outside the area of influence of the proposed project. As this continues to be the case (that is, there is no interaction between the project and Lake 23) no additional fishing effort there is planned. It is acknowledged that the statement that Lake 23 is fishless could be qualified given the level of effort that was utilized.

Sturdee Cove – No direct fishing effort was expended in Sturdee Cove. Reduced flows in Stream 6 during operations will impact Stream 6 not Sturdee Cove, as Stream 6 is a very minor input into the lake. Nevertheless, SCI will collect baseline fisheries information, including habitat information and species presence and habitat use, in Sturdee Cove during summer 2013 to round out the project-associated baseline program.

Stream 1 – It is unlikely that fish species that may inhabit the lower reach of Stream 1 were not collected during the 2009 sampling. The stream channel is relatively narrow (< 2 m) and shallow (< 0.25 m) and the water is transparent. Any fish present would have been collected. Connectivity between the Pic River and Stream 1 is limited to a few days to a week or two each spring because of the nature of the culvert along the existing access road. The survey was completed after the freshet while there was no connectivity. The information collected indicated that the lower reach of Stream 1 provides some spawning and nursery habitat for coldwater migratory species, which is sufficient for the purposes of the environmental assessment as it concerns predicting potential project related effects. Additional sampling in the spring and summer of 2013 is planned. The spring sampling will provide more quantitative information on Steelhead spawning. The summer 2013 will be completed to supplement the existing baseline and confirm the 2009 sampling results.

Stream 2 – The lower reach of Stream 2 was electrofished on four separate occasions between 2007 and 2011. Sampling was conducted both in the spring and late summer. The information collected is in our view sufficient for the purposes of the environmental assessment as it concerns predicting potential project related effects.

Information Request 13.3

Habitat Characterization

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) EIS Main Report - Section 6.2.4, p. 6.62 (PDF 568) SID#7 - Section 3, p. 3.1 (PDF 34) - Section 4, p. 4.1 (PDF 45)

Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require SCI to identify potential effects on fish / fish habitat during all phases of the Project. The EIS Guidelines also require that the analysis of potential effects consider the habitat loss or alteration to various types of fish habitats and an analysis of potential changes in migratory fish behaviour, mortality of fish and changes to Aboriginal, commercial and/or recreational fisheries resources. However, the EIS does not include measures of productive capacity such as fish density, biomass or productivity, biomass and diversity. This information is necessary to provide a benchmark in which to compare the change in productive capacity.

Information Request: Where available, provide a summary of the habitats that will be potentially affected by the Project, including: • measures of productive capacity; • estimated amounts of fish mortality; • an overview of habitat types, including an estimation of the amount of each habitat type (i.e. lake, river, wetland, riparian zone); and • a summary of the usage of fish habitat, including spawning, feeding, and migration corridors.

SCI RESPONSE

Measures of productive capacity were collected for Hare Lake, given its proposed receipt of discharge from the PSMF. This information is provided here and can also be found in SID #1. To establish a baseline, the biomass (i.e., g/net) was calculated for the 32 Nordic net sets from the 2011 survey in Hare Lake. Biomass ranged from 0 to 2,590 g per net with a mean of 685 g and a median of 283 g. To gauge the species diversity in Hare Lake, the Shannon H Evenness and Berger-Parker Dominance indices were calculated based on netting data. The Berger-Parker index was 1.51 falling between the 25% and median values indicating below average diversity. The Shannon H index was 1.02 also indicating below average diversity.

In total, 10 species have been captured in Hare Lake during the 2009 and 2011 surveys. The catches only varied slightly among the two surveys in terms of species composition and abundance. Two species, Walleye and Fathead Minnow have previously been reported (ODLF, 1960; OMNR 1975, 1991) but have not been captured recently. Walleye were stocked in the 1950s but likely no longer inhabit the lake.

Three chlorophyll a samples were collected in Hare Lake from September 2011 to September 2012 with values ranging from 1.4 to 2.4 μg/L indicating that Hare Lake is oligotrophic (Wetzel, 2001).

Chlorophyll data have also been collected from the ponds and small lakes on the Project site that are part of the ongoing routine surface water monitoring program, including L1, L2, L5, L8, L9, L10, L12, L14, L15, L19 and L23. These data were collected seasonally in 2012 and do not appear in SID #1. Chlorophyll a levels varied widely but as expected increased through the year and were generally highest across the Project site in September. Chlorophyll samples were not collected in Lake Superior as there is existing data for the lake that indicate it is an oligotrophic lake.

In addition, SCI is committed to conducting further pre-operational fisheries surveys, as well as subsequent monitoring. This work will include monitoring steelhead run strength in Stream 6, Hare Creek, Stream 1 and 2 during the spring of 2013. A monitoring program for Hare Lake will be designed to meet the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) regulatory requirements, and will also include contingency for a netting program that follows the provincial broad scale netting program as may be appropriate.

Some fish mortality could occur during the site preparation and construction phase of the project as water bodies or watercourses that will be directly impacted by the Project footprint are dewatered. The lower reaches of Streams 2, 3 and 6 support coldwater fish species such as Brook and Rainbow Trout, and Chinook Salmon and are expected to be indirectly affected by the Project due to reduced base flows as a result of a loss of headwater drainage area. It is expected that as water in the upper watershed is diverted and flows decrease, fish will move downstream to the Pic River (Streams 2 and 3) or to Lake Superior (Stream 6), depending on the availability of remaining habitat. If required (i.e., fish become stranded in isolated pools), SCI will focus efforts on these areas and relocate fish to the Pic River or Lake Superior.

The following table provides a summary of the amount of each habitat type for areas that will be affected (directly and indirectly) by the Project:

Watershed Lake Habitat (no Lake Habitat Stream Habitat Stream Habitat fish) ha (fish) ha (no fish) ha (fish) ha Stream 1 0 0 0.003 0.003 Stream 2 0 0.345 0.133 0.321 Stream 3 4.68 ha 0 0.47 0.15 Stream 6 1.91 0 0.17 1.59 Pic River 0 0 0.15 0 Tributary Total 6.59 0.345 0.926 2.091

More than two thirds (7.5 ha) of the aquatic habitat that would be affected by the Project is lake/stream habitat that is not frequented by fish. The lake habitat that will be affected by the Project that is frequented by fish supports only small bodied fish species (i.e., Lake Chub and Brook Stickleback). Approximately 2 ha of stream habitat that is frequented by fish would be affected by the Project. Of this habitat only 0.93 ha is frequented by large bodied fish species (i.e., Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout and Chinook Salmon). This habitat occurs within the lower reaches of Pic River Tributary Streams 2 and 3, as well as the lower reach of Stream 6, and would be indirectly affected by the Project due to reduced flows during mine operations.

Wetlands and beaver ponds were included with the characterization for lake habitat. A description of the riparian zone for each water body and watercourse was documented in SID #1.

The following two tables provide a summary of fish habitat utilization by watercourse and water body for areas that will be directly and indirectly affected by the Project:

Stream Habitat (only streams with some portion that is frequented by fish were included) Stream Name Habitat Upper Reach Mid Reach Lower Reach Stream 1 Watershed Stream 1 Headwater areas N, F, M, S for resident N, F, M, S for trout and none; downstream trout; N, F, S for small salmon is present but fish N, F, S for small bodied fish species access may be limited bodied fish species due to perched culvert); N, F, S for small bodied fish species Stream 2 Watershed Stream 2 Headwater areas N, F, M, S for resident N, F, M, S for resident none; N, F, S for trout; N, F, S for small and migratory fish - trout, small bodied fish bodied fish species salmon, sucker; N, F, S species for small bodied fish species Stream 3 Watershed Stream 3 None None N, F, M, S for resident and migratory fish - trout, salmon Stream 4 Watershed Stream 4 None N, F, S for small bodied N, F, M, S for resident fish species and migratory fish - trout, salmon; N, F, S for small bodied fish species Hare Creek Watershed Stream 5 None N, F, S for small bodied N, F, M, S for resident fish trout; N, F, S for small bodied fish species Bamoos Creek N, F, M, S for resident trout; N, F, S for small bodied fish species Hare Creek N, M, F, S for resident and migratory fish - trout, salmon and other species Stream 6 Watershed Stream 6 N, F, S for small N, F, S for small bodied limited N, F, M, S for bodied fish fish resident and migratory fish - trout, salmon; natural barrier at upstream end of reach Notes: S=spawning habitat, N=nursery habitat, F=foraging habitat, M=migratory habitat and O=overwintering habitat.

Lake Habitat (only lakes frequented by fish were included) Lakes/Pond Name Habitat

Stream 2 Watershed Station L7 N, F for small bodied fish species Station L6 N, F for small bodied fish species Canoe Lake (L5) N, F, O for small bodied fish species Station L14 N, F, S for small bodied fish species Station L8 N, F, S for small bodied fish species Station L15 N, F, S for small bodied fish species

Stream 4 Watershed Station L18 S for small bodied fish species; N, F for suckers Station L19 S for small bodied fish; N, F for suckers

Hare Creek Watershed Station L4 N, F, S for small bodied fish Station L17 N, F, S for small bodied fish Bamoos Lake S for Lake Trout, inlet and outlet streams for Brook Trout and White Sucker; N, F, M, O for trout, cisco, sucker and small bodied fish Hare Lake S for Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, N, F, M, O for all fish species Notes: S=spawning habitat, N=nursery habitat, F=foraging habitat, M=migratory habitat and O=overwintering habitat. Information Request 13.4

Assessment of Effects on Direct and Indirect Fish Habitat

References:

Panel Terms of Reference - Section 1, p. 12 EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.5, p. 36 (PDF 41) - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) EIS Main Report - Section 6.2.4.1, p. 6.65 (PDF 571) - Section 6.2.4.4, p. 6.70 (PDF 576) - Section 8, p. 8.5 (PDF 758) SID#7 - Section 3.3.1, p. 3.5 (PDF 38)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-21 MNR-A-24 MNR-A-37

Rationale:

SID #7 differentiates between “direct fish habitat” and “indirect fish habitat”. Direct fish habitat is defined as fish-frequented waters, and indirect fish habitat is defined as waters were no fish are found, but a contribution to downstream areas in the watershed is provided (see footnote 1, Table 1.2). Further, section 3.3.1 of SID #7 also states that aquatic effects were evaluated in terms of the potential effects upon “fisheries and habitats which support a fishery” (p. 3.5).

SID #7 states that while the Project will affect approximately 9.3 ha of aquatic habitat (direct and indirect fish habitat), only approximately 1.8 ha affords “direct fish habitat”, and therefore, compensation is only being proposed for this amount. While section 8.0 of the EIS Main Report lists best practice mitigation measures for protecting fish and fish habitat, these measures do not appear to fully mitigate for the 7.5 ha of indirect fish habitat that will potentially be affected by the Project.

The Panel's ToR requires it to consider the effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat. The Joint Review Panel Agreement (JRPA) and Panel ToR define both "environment" and "environmental effect" broadly. Therefore, the Panel’s assessment of potential effects on this VEC is not limited to effects on “direct fish habitat” or fisheries. Further, the EIS Guidelines required SCI to “identify effects on fish and fish habitat during all phases of the project.” The Panel is required to fulfil its mandate and is not limited by definitions in other legislation.

Information Request: Provide an assessment of potential effects on fish and fish habitat beyond established fisheries and “direct fish habitat” for all phases of the Project. This includes water bodies that could directly or indirectly support a current or potential fishery, as well as water bodies that provide food or habitat that supports fish.

Additionally, clarify how all of the potential effects of the Project on fish, including direct and indirect fish habitat, will be mitigated.

SCI RESPONSE

Overall, the Project will affect a total of approximately 9.9 ha of fish habitat (described in detail below) of which approximately 2.4 ha is frequented by fish. Of the 2.4 ha that is frequented by fish only 0.93 ha supports large bodied fish species (i.e., Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout and/or Chinook Salmon).

The following table provides a summary of fish habitat (direct and indirect) that will be affected by the Project by Project phase.

Project Phase Lake (Indirect) Lake (Direct) Stream Stream ha ha (Indirect) ha (Direct) ha Site Preparation -6.59 -0.35 -0.926 -2.06 and Construction Operations NA NA NA NA Decommissioning +6.33 +3.64 and Closure Total -6.59 +5.98 -0.926 +1.58 Note: NA = no adverse effects anticipated

Approximately 7.5 ha of lake and stream habitat that is not frequented by fish (indirect fish habitat) would be removed during the site preparation and construction phase of the Project. These areas would be supplanted to accommodate mine infrastructure (i.e., MSRA, PSMF, pits and temporary type 2 rock storage areas etc.). Approximately 0.35 ha of lake habitat that supports only small bodied fish species (i.e., Lake Chub and Brook Stickleback) would be removed during the site preparation and construction phase of the Project. Approximately 1.13 ha of stream habitat that supports only small bodied fish species would be removed during the site preparation and construction phase of the Project. Approximately 0.33 ha of stream habitat that supports large bodied fish species would be affected by reduced flows from the upstream watershed. This could impede fish from accessing the lower reaches of Streams 2 and 3 as a result of water management activities during the site preparation and construction phase of the Project. In addition, approximately 0.6 ha of stream habitat in the lower reach of Stream 6 that also supports large bodied fish species may be affected due to a reduction in flows from the upstream watershed. This may also impede fish from accessing the lower reaches of Stream 6 and potentially reduce the amount of spawning and/or nursery habitats available due to water management activities during the site preparation and construction phase of the Project.

The road network, which would be completed during the site preparation and construction phase, would require the development of road crossings (culverts) at two locations in Stream 1. Only one of the Stream 1 crossing locations is frequented by fish and the crossing structure for this location would be designed using an open bottom structure to mitigate potential effects (i.e., alteration) to fish habitat. Other crossings on minor ephemeral, drainage features would also be necessary. These crossings will be designed with appropriately sized culverts that meet MNR requirements for maintaining downstream flows. Any additional culvert crossings that may be required in direct fish habitat would be designed to meet MNR requirements for maintaining downstream flows, fish passage and would be sized and installed (i.e., imbedded) so that the bottoms can be naturalized. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented and maintained throughout construction to prevent the release of solids into aquatic habitat.

The primary potential fisheries-related concern related to the operations phase of the Project is surface water discharge from the site into local receiving waters. Water quality predictions made in the Main EIS Report and SID #6 indicate that untreated discharge from the MRSA and excess water discharged from the PSMF will be protective of receiving water quality, fish and fish habitat. Water treatment capability will be provided to assure this result.

No adverse effects on fish habitat are anticipated during mine decommissioning and closure. Most of the fish habitat compensation works proposed to mitigate the loss of habitat during site preparation and construction would be implemented after mine closure and therefore a net benefit to fish habitat would in fact occur during this phase of the Project. The restoration of natural surface water drainage patterns in combination with fish habitat enhancement works will fully restore the function of the lower reaches of Streams 2, 3 and 6.

The potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat would be mitigated through compensation, which is a form of mitigation, as described in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID #7). The proposed habitat gains in this preliminary compensation strategy (i.e., restoration, enhancement and creation of new habitat) would be approximately 10 ha. While the entire 10 ha would be designed to directly support fish, to compensate for the loss of direct fish habitat, it would also provide the same ecological functions (i.e., flows and nutrient/food production) to downstream fish habitat that indirect fish habitat provides. Therefore, while the focus of the preliminary FHCS is on direct fish habitat, the proposed habitat gains would not only directly support fish but would also indirectly support downstream fish habitat. The FHCS is under discussion with the applicable regulatory agencies.

Information Request 13.5.1

Fish Habitat Compensation Plan

Effects from Water Flow Changes

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) EIS Main Report - Executive Summary, (p. xv) - Table 6.1.4, p. 6.15 (PDF 521) - Table 7.3.1, p. 7.12 (PDF 749) - Section 6.2.4.1, p. 6.68 (PDF 574) SID#21 - Section 5.2.1, p. 31 (PDF 41) SID#7 - Section 3.3.1, p. 3.5 (PDF 38)

Contributing IRs: PMFN/PPFN-11 PMFN/PPFN-18 MNR-A-19 MNR-A-24 MNR-A-35 MNR-A-37

Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require that the potential effects and planned mitigative strategies for avoiding Harmful Alteration, Disruption and Destruction (HADDs) of fish habitat will be identified for the footprint of development, infrastructure development, dewatering activities, flow changes from water management and diversions, and compensation activities. The EIS Guidelines also require an analysis of potential changes in migratory fish behaviour resulting from project activities.

Baseline studies have shown that streams 1, 2, 3 and 6 are home to resident and migratory salmonids and have the potential to be feeding, spawning, and nursery habitats. These water bodies also contain fish and fish habitat that could support one or more life processes of fish, or could directly or indirectly support a current or potential fishery.

Information Request: Provide a description of how the removal of parts of streams 1, 2, 3, and 6, by being incorporated into the mining infrastructure, as well as the reduction in water flows resulting from project activities, will affect the feeding, spawning, and migratory behaviours of fishes, particularly salmonids such as Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout, Steelhead Trout, and Chinook Salmon.

SCI RESPONSE

As documented in the Aquatic Resources Baseline Report (SID #1) the lower reaches of Pic River Tributary Streams 1, 2, and 3, and Stream 6 (Angler Creek) provide potential coldwater spawning and nursery habitat for both migratory (i.e., Rainbow Trout, Chinook Salmon) and resident (i.e., Brook Trout) salmonids. However currently upstream migration of fish in Steam 1 from the Pic River is impeded under all but the highest flow conditions due to a perched culvert near the confluence with the Pic River.

With respect to the Stream 1 watershed, Project infrastructure, including a small part of the PSMF will be situated in the headwater areas. The effect on the surface water flow regime is anticipated to be minor and the effect on the feeding, spawning, and migratory behaviours of salmonids is also expected to be minimal. A decrease in mean monthly and return period peak flows in the range of 5 percent is projected, which is within the standard typically applied by the Ministry of Environment when evaluating permits to take water (PTTW) from streams. It is believed that the taking of water volumes below this threshold should have minimal impact upon aquatic communities. With respect to peak flows, the percent change decreases with an increasing return period. This is attributed to an approximately 5% decrease in drainage area due to construction of the PSMF and other mine infrastructure.

Approximately 0.33 ha of habitat in Pic River Tributary Streams 2 and 3 would be affected by reduced flows from the incorporation of portions of the upstream watershed into mine infrastructure. The resulting decrease in mean monthly, peak, and low flows in these watersheds would likely prevent fish from utilizing the lower reaches of Stream 3 for any purpose, as well as reduce the available feeding, spawning, nursery and migratory habitats in Stream 2. The total area affected within Streams 2 and 3 has been included in the calculation of the amount of fish habitat that will be lost as a result of the Project. The loss of this 0.33 ha of coldwater fish habitat would be mitigated through fish habitat compensation measures as described in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID #7).

Mine infrastructure in the headwater will reduce the watershed of Stream 6 by 50%. This was included in the original calculation of fish habitat lost as a result of the Project and Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy. Reduced flows would result in the lower reaches of Stream 6, affecting 0.6 ha of stream habitat. The resulting decrease in mean monthly, peak, and low flows in this watershed would reduce the amount of available fish habitat and therefore decrease the productive capacity of the watercourse. All behaviours including feeding, spawning, and migratory are likely to be affected to some degree. To be conservative, the entire amount of affected habitat will be compensated for. The 0.6 ha of fish habitat in the lower reaches of Stream 6 was not originally included in the calculation of the amount of fish habitat lost as a result of the Project due to clerical error. However, it has now been added and the total amount of habitat that will be affected by the Project has increased from the 9.3 ha reported in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID #7) to 9.9 ha. The total habitat gains through mitigation (i.e., restoration, enhancement and creation of new habitat) would still be 9.97 ha as reported in Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID #7). Information Request 13.5.2

Water and Sediment Quality in Pit Lake

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) SID#7 - Section 4.2.1, p. 4.2 (PDF 46) - Section 4.4.3, p. 4.3 (PDF 53) SID#18 - Section 3.7, p. 46 (PDF 53)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-20 MiningWatch

Rationale:

The closure plan states that Type 2 mine rock will be deposited in the main pit which will subsequently be flooded to prevent potential acid generation. Prior to closure, the Type 2 mine rock will be stockpiled adjacent to the primary and satellite pits.

Conversion of Pit 5 to Pit Lake and the creation of the connecting stream may be completed during the operations phase, before the closure plan. Upon closure, water from Pit Lake will flow via Stream 1 to the Pic River.

There is a possibility that the stockpiled Type 2 mine rock and the exposed pit walls will oxidize rapidly, during the time it takes for Pit Lake to fill. This could lead to an increased acid load in Pit Lake, which would then flow through Stream 1 to the Pic River, which could have an adverse impact on this aquatic ecosystem, such as effects on sediment and benthos quality.

Information Request: Provide more detailed information regarding how the potential for acid generation from the stockpiled Type 2 mine rock and the exposed pit walls will be managed to ensure that water and sediment quality in Pit 5, and connecting streams to Pic River, are capable of supporting fish and fish habitat.

SCI RESPONSE

During operations drainage from Type 2 mine rock will be directed to the pit(s) and managed through the PSMF. At closure, Type 2 mine rock stockpiles will be relocated in the pit (s) that is not being used for fish habitat compensation. Two areas within the satellite pit area have been identified for use as part of the fish habitat compensation. The areas that will be used to create the lake as part of fish habitat compensation works associated with the project will be established with water that is not impacted by the Type 2 mine rock stockpiles, runoff from the stockpiles is therefore not of concern.

Based on ongoing work associated with the mine plan and sulphur model for the deposit acid generation from the pit walls is not anticipated to be significant. The acid generating potential of the material adjacent to the pit(s) wall will be confirmed in situ during excavation as part of the sampling and testing to confirm ore grades as well as Type 1 and Type 2 waste rock as discussed in the response to IR 9.6 (No. 38) Additional sampling and testing of the pit wall can be completed if PAG material is identified in the pit wall areas.

If during excavation of this pit area potentially acid generating (PAG) rock is identified in the pit walls, mitigation strategies are available to ensure water quality in the pit lake will be adequate to support fish. Potential strategies include:

 Removal of the PAG rock from the pit wall by blasting, if safe to do so. If the extent of the PAG material is limited additional material could be removed from the pit wall by decreasing the slope angle of wall. If this is done early in mine life the material would be moved for storage with other Type 2 mine rock and re-located to the primary pit for long-term storage after closure. If this was done following final excavation of the future pit lake the material could be left on the pit floor, covered with Type 1 mine rock during back-filling of the pit and subsequently stored sub- aqueous when the pit floods.  Leaving the PAG rock in place in the pit wall. The pit could be proactively filled with water prior to any acid generation so that the potential for future acid generation is removed. Filling of the pit prior to acid generation would be dependent on the pit excavation plan and the properties of the PAG material in the pit wall.  pH adjustment. The pH of the pit wall may be adjusted through means such as batch lime addition to the pit to address any acid generation that has occurred.

Information Request 13.5.3

Watershed associated with Pit Lake

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 59 (PDF 64) SID#1 - Figure 3.3, (PDF 160) SID#7 - Section 4.2.1, p. 4.2 (PDF 46)

Rationale:

The watershed boundary does not match the discussion on the proposed fish habitat compensation strategy. Figure 3.3 of SID #1 shows Satellite Pit 5 as being located within the Stream 1 watershed. However, this is inconsistent with the proposed fish habitat compensation plan, which suggests that water from Pit Lake, which would drain into the Stream 1 watershed, would increase the amount of flow in the watershed. However, if Pit Lake is already in the Stream 1 watershed as indicated in SID #1, there would be no increase in flow.

Information Request: Clarify the discrepancy regarding the watershed in which Pit 5 is located. If Pit 5 is located within the Stream 1 watershed, explain how the proposed fish habitat compensation plan meets its stated objective of increasing the flow into Stream 1.

SCI RESPONSE

To clarify, the majority of the drainage area that comprises the future pit lake is within the Stream 2 subwatershed. Re-directing this water into the Stream 1 subwatershed following development of the pit lake will functionally add about 10% to the drainage area of Stream 1, and therefore it is expected that on an annual basis flows in the subwatershed would increase proportionately. Information Request 13.5.4

Time Lag for Establishment of Compensation

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) EIS Main Report - Executive Summary, p. xv (PDF 17) - Section 6.1, p. 6.1 (PDF 507) - Section 6.1.1.4, p. 6.11 (PDF 517) - Section 6.2.4, p. 6.62 (PDF 568) - Section 6.2.4.1, p. 6.68 (PDF 574) - Table 6.1.4, p. 6.15 (PDF 521) - Table 7.3.1, p. 7.12 (PDF 749)

Contributing IRs: PMFN/PPFN-11 PMFN/PPFN-19 PMFN/PPFN-34 MNR-A-35 MNR-A-38

Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines state that in developing the fish habitat compensation plan, consideration must be given to time delays between the loss of productive capacity and when replacement habitat is created and becomes functional, as well as uncertainty in whether the replacement habitat is likely to function as intended.

The EIS states that the natural surface water drainages for streams 2, 3 and 6 will be restored post-closure. Many salmonids show strong fidelity to their spawning sites, returning to their natal sites in order to spawn. The removal of these water bodies may impede spawning and therefore adversely affect population sizes. It is important to accurately portray the effects of the Project over time in order to understand potential effects, particularly on salmonids such as Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout, Steelhead Trout, and Chinook Salmon.

Information Request: Provide more detail on how the time lag between the alteration/destruction of habitat and the completion of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan will be addressed, such that it is capable of supporting healthy fish populations. Include information on how SCI will address effects on the various life history strategies of migratory fish.

Discuss the potential for the re-establishment of migratory patterns of fish, including salmonids, post closure and propose necessary mitigation measures and monitoring plans, as per IR 13.5.1.

SCI RESPONSE

The majority of the proposed compensation works will take place during the decommissioning and closure phase of the project while the alteration/destruction of fish habitat will occur mainly during the site preparation and construction phases of the project. However, compensation works that are outside of the project footprint (e.g., the replacement of the culvert and enhancement work in Stream 1 and Pic River restoration) will be completed as early in the Project development process as is feasible. This would include the additional coldwater habitat compensation opportunities that SCI is committed to pursuing as per the response to IR 13.5.5. In addition, compensation elements that are within the footprint of the Project will be progressively completed throughout the operations, decommissioning and closure phases of the Project as the opportunities become available. As all of the compensation works cannot be completed during the site preparation and constructions phases of the Project (i.e., when the fish habitat will be lost) the amount of direct fish habitat created or enhanced as per the FHCS will be approximately four times greater than the direct fish habitat that will be altered/lost. This high ratio of compensation habitat to direct fish habitat lost is intended to address the time lag between the loss of productive capacity of fish habitat and the time required for the compensation habitat to become functional. This compensation ratio is also intended to address uncertainty with the replacement habitat functioning as intended.

With regards to the effects on the various life history strategies of migratory fish, the resulting decrease in mean monthly, peak, and low flows in the upstream watersheds would likely prevent fish from utilizing the lower reaches of Stream 3 for any purpose, as well as reduce the amount of available feeding, spawning, nursery and migratory habitats in Stream 2. Approximately 50% of the watershed area will be lost in the Stream 6 watershed. The resulting decrease in mean monthly, peak, and low flows in this watershed will reduce the amount of available fish habitat in Stream 6 and therefore decrease the productive capacity of the watercourse. All behaviours including feeding, spawning, and migratory are likely to be affected to some degree. To be conservative, for Streams 2, 3 and 6, the entire amount of affected habitat has been included in the calculation of habitat lost and will be compensated for.

To address the potential for re-establishment of migratory patterns of fish, including salmonids post closure, SCI will monitor the lower reaches of Streams 1, 2, 3 and 6 both prior to development of the Project and during operations. The monitoring data will give SCI a better understanding of the numbers of migratory salmonids that are utilizing the tributaries for spawning and nursery, before development of the Project and the actual impacts of the Project on habitat use during operations. Based on the monitoring results the appropriate mitigation measures can be implemented in the watercourses during the completion of the habitat compensation works. The mitigation measures may range from allowing fish numbers to naturally recover to transplanting fish in the some or all of the watercourses. If the impact of the Project does not impede fish from entering and utilizing the available habitat entirely, fish production should recover naturally once the water flows are restored through the compensation works and additional mitigation may not be required. In the case where fish are impeded from entering or utilizing the habitat entirely, additional mitigation (e.g., stocking) may be required to re-establish the migratory fish usage. The study design (i.e., methods and frequency) for the pre development and operations monitoring will be developed in consultation with both DFO and MNR. The development and implementation of an appropriate mitigation strategy for re-establishing the migratory fish will also be completed in consultation with DFO and MNR.

With respect to the mitigation and compensation measures, a long term compliance and effectiveness monitoring program will be developed as part of the final Fish Habitat Compensation Plan. The monitoring program, which will be developed in consultation with DFO and MNR, will ensure that the compensation works are constructed to design specifications and that the compensation habitat is functioning as intended. The program will focus on the biological effectiveness (e.g., seasonal use by resident and migratory fish species), water quantity and quality (e.g., temperature and pH), habitat structure, attribute integrity and functionality (e.g., riparian vegetation survival and fish utilization at each life- history stage). Monitoring will be scheduled at regular intervals throughout the construction of the various compensation elements and until the compensation habitat is functioning as intended. Information Request 13.5.5

Compensating for Coldwater Habitat

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) SID#7 - Section 3.5, p. 3.10 (PDF 43)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-23 MNR-A-24 MNR-A-26

Rationale:

The EIS states that “although the Project will impact upon waters frequented by fish, none would be considered as supporting, or potentially supporting a fishery.” However, brook and rainbow trout, as well as Chinook salmon are highly sought fish species in the Lake Superior Basin.

The proposed Fish Habitat Compensation Plan does not consider the replacement of the coldwater fish habitat in Streams 2, 3 and 6 that will be lost as result of the Project with similar habitat. Rather, the proposed plan includes increasing the productivity of the habitat in the Stream 1 watershed (by creating a connection to Pic River and creating of a bait fishery in Pit Lake). The significance of the loss of coldwater habitats in Streams 2, 3, and 6 and potentially in Hare Creek and Stream 1 must be considered, as the loss of coldwater nursery areas is a major concern on the north shore of Lake Superior.

Productive coldwater habitats are not complex (have few species) and have low productivity. For instance, increasing complexity (number of fish species) in the Stream 1 watershed could increase competition for available habitat and result in the loss of brook trout in the middle reach. Likewise, increasing productivity generally means increasing water temperature, which would likely result in the loss of salmonids in the lower reach.

The proposal to replace coldwater habitat along Lake Superior with baitfish habitat in Pit 5 and the goal of “…increasing net productivity and complexity of fish…” ignores coldwater fish habitat as a valued ecosystem component in this area. Coldwater habitat, notably brook trout habitat along Lake Superior is of high value and should be explored as part of the compensation strategy.

Information Request: Provide a discussion on alternatives for fish habitat compensation that recognize the value of coldwater species and address the creation of coldwater habitat.

Justify why not creating like-for-like habitat (i.e. not replacing the lost coldwater habitat with similar habitat) is appropriate for the Project.

SCI RESPONSE

The majority of habitat disturbance that would result from the implementation of the project comprises small, shallow fishless ponds and associated connecting channels. SCI did not see the value in replacing this type of habitat within a like-for-like context and attempted to provide options with greater value to the extent possible given the limitations of potential on-site or near-site opportunities.

The Stream 1 compensation option described in Supporting Information Document (SID) #7 provides benefit to coldwater species, such as resident brook trout and migratory salmonids (e.g., steelhead). Increasing base flow to Stream 1 will provide additional habitat for and would benefit coldwater species. SCI has no intent to increase fish species diversity in the system. There are small fish species (e.g., dace) in the mid-reach of Stream 1 currently, where brook trout are also found. Introducing the same small fish species into the head water of the system, including the new pit lake, is unlikely have an effect on fish population dynamics in the mid-reaches of Stream 1, as the headwater area is topographically isolated. It will be possible to design the outlet of a pit lake to draw water from the lake bottom to ensure that the temperature regime downstream is protected.

SCI is not opposed to considering further compensation options that provide benefits to coldwater species. SCI approached the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans directly in 2010 to help identify potential off-site opportunities for this purpose but at that time staff from neither agency was aware of any. Since that time, potential options have been identified with MNR and are in the process of being explored further. Additional potential opportunities to provide benefit to coldwater species are also being explored with the Northshore Steelhead Association, which has a number of planned and ongoing coldwater fisheries enhancement projects in the region. SCI is committed to working with these groups to develop potential coldwater habitat opportunities in a timely fashion.

The assertion that it may not be appropriate to create like-for-like habitat as it pertains to the project is related to the nature of the majority of the habitat that will be disturbed by the project. Information Request 13.5.6

Feasibility of Fish Habitat Compensation Plan

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) SID#7 - Section 4.5, p. 4.11 (PDF 55)

Rationale:

Section 4.5 of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan indicates that one of the uncertainties associated with the proposed compensation plan is the “technical feasibility of the proposed compensation works”.

Information Request: Provide information regarding the long-term feasibility of the proposed compensation works. In particular, provide information regarding the long term feasibility of creating self- sustaining ecosystems in the form of the proposed new lake in Satellite Pit #5 and the new naturalized streams and ponds across the reclaimed areas of Satellite Pits #2, 3 and 4.

SCI RESPONSE

DFO staff participated in the publication of a report titled Open Pit Mines: Processes and Considerations, with Emphasis on Northern Environments (Gammons et al., 2009) which discusses the use of open pits to create lake habitat during reclamation for the mining industry. Lakes that are created by flooding excavated mining pits are called End Pit Lakes. End pit lakes have been used in reclamation efforts in the mining industry over the last number of years in Canada and other countries around the world (United States, Australia, etc…).

Gammons et al. (2009), discuss some of the factors that must be considered for the long- term sustainability of such end pit lakes. The main considerations relate to the limnological, hydrological and physical features of the pit lake. For example, acidity, low surface area to depth ratio, lack of littoral habitat and lake turnover, pit wall stability and water chemistry can affect the ability of a pit lake to support a diverse ecological community. Therefore, the intended ecological benefits of these lakes must be considered during the reclamation planning process, especially in terms of habitat creation or restoration and maintaining this habitat.

Studies can be undertaken to gain a better understanding of the predicted site specific conditions (e.g., acid-base accounting tests, mesocosm experiments, etc.) and the pit lake can be designed to address issues with surface area to depth ratio, amount of littoral habitat, stability and water quality. As discussed in Gammons et al (2009), the initial biodiversity of a newly-formed pit lake is likely to be low, but is expected to increase over time, and can be further enhanced by re-landscaping the pit walls or treating the contained water, either chemically or biologically.

There are several examples of end pit lakes within Canada that currently support functioning aquatic ecosystems and even recreational fisheries. A brief description of a two of these examples from Gammons et al., (2009) is provided below.

East Pit Lake, located near Wabamun, Alberta, is a coal mine pit created by dragline mining that was reclaimed after mining ceased, to create a lake that currently supports a productive recreational fishery. During reclamation, the East Pit was filled with groundwater as compensation for two small water bodies that were drained to access the coal (Sumer et al., 1995). East Pit Lake is currently 100 m wide, 800 m long with an average depth of 3.3 m and a maximum depth of 10 m. Prior to allowing the pit to fill with groundwater, physical contouring was required in order to meet the reclamation goals of creating a fishery, and enhancing the surrounding area to be used for recreational activities. Major earthwork was completed during construction to increase littoral habitat and to ensure adequate depths for fish survival. After the lake filled with water, shoreline habitat creation and enhancement procedures were undertaken. Logs and brush were submerged along the shoreline to create in-water cover, and brush piles were placed at varying depths to provide cover in deeper parts of the lake. In addition, submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation was established in the littoral areas of the lake. Aquatic vegetation is important to provide refuge for aquatic invertebrates that are valuable food for fish and it also increases dissolved oxygen. As a combined result of the major earthwork and habitat enhancement, East Pit Lake currently supports a diverse community of aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, and fish including Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). It also provides excellent recreational fishing opportunities (Gammons et al, 2009). TransAlta Utilities, the company at the forefront of the project, has received numerous awards for their efforts in establishing a well-known sport fishery.

The Steep Rock mines of northwestern Ontario (near Atikokan) is an example where fish naturally colonized an abandoned pit. Several large natural lakes were completely drained and buried with waste rock and overburden during iron ore mining operations (Sowa, 2004). Following closure of the mines, several of the mine pits were flooded and dams were built to raise the level of the impounded water, creating a new reservoir/pit lake system that presently supports a population of bass (Micropterus spp.), Walleye (Sander vitreus), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis), and Cisco (Coregonus artedi). A large floating fish culture operation has also been established in the pit (McNaughton et al., 1999; Sowa, 2004).

There are many other examples in Canada of abandoned pits that have been naturally and unintentionally re-colonized by fish that have been able to sustain populations. The Gunnar Pit in northern Saskatchewan is one example where fish were able to enter the flooded pit and have been reproducing in the pit, in isolation from Lake Athabasca, for many years. The final design of the compensation habitat will incorporate consideration of site specific conditions and long term sustainability to ensure that the compensation works are successful and support sustainable fish populations.

The draft conceptual FHCS includes consideration of long term sustainability of the habitat. The pit lake and wetlands/ponds will be designed to provide overwintering habitat and the pit lake will be partially backfilled to increase the surface area to depth ratio and amount of littoral habitat. The lakes, ponds and stream will also be designed to provide habitat for all fish life stages by planting riparian and aquatic vegetation, habitat structures and different substrate types.

References

Gammons, C.H., L.N. Harris, J.M. Castro, P.A. Cott, and B.W. Hanna. 2009. Creating lakes from open pit mines: processes and considerations, with emphasis on northern environments. Can. Tech. Rept. Fish. Aquat, Sci. 2826. ix + 106 p.

McNaughton K, P.F. Lee, D. Lindsay, M.P. Sudbury. 1999. The limnology of an open pit fish farm. Mine Water Environ. 1, 169-175.

Sowa V.A. 2004. Aspects of sustainability following closure of the Steep Rock Iron Mines, Ontario. Explor. Mining Geol. 12, 37-47.

Sumer S, L. Pitts, J. McCulloch, H. Quan. 1995. Alberta lake re-established after draining to mine coal. Min. Eng. 47, 1015–1020.

Information Request 13.6

Risk Assessment Methodology

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.1.5, p. 49 (PDF 54) - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58-60 (PDF 63-65) SID#7 - Section 3.3.2, p. 3.6 (PDF 39)

Rationale:

SID #7 discusses the risk assessment process that was used to determine the level of risk that the residual effects of the Project pose to fish and fish habitat. In applying the risk assessment framework, SCI included indirect fish habitat in determining the level of risk, despite the fact that only 1.8 ha of direct fish habitat has been proposed to be compensated. Including indirect habitat in the determination of risk appears to lower the risk of the potential effects.

Information Request: Reassess the risk of the potential effects of the Project by considering only the effects on direct (fish bearing) habitat.

SCI RESPONSE

In reviewing the IR, SCI feels that there may be some confusion as to what the DFO risk assessment framework is intended to communicate with regards to “risk” and “potential effects of the Project”. The DFO risk assessment framework is used to determine whether, or not, an authorization under Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act related to the implementation of an activity or project is required, and if so the nature of the authorization. As described in SID #7:

 Low Risk Development proposals that are characterized as Low Risk are not likely to result in HADD, providing appropriate mitigation measures are applied. Development proposals where the effects are well understood and readily mitigable using standard measures, fit into this category.  Medium Risk Development proposals are likely to result in HADD and a Fisheries Act authorization will be required. The purpose of the Medium Risk category is to recognize that some activities result in HADDs that are small-scale and/or temporary in duration, and have predictable outcomes with a low level of uncertainty surrounding potential negative effects.  High Risk development proposals will result in HADD over a long period of time and/or a broad geographic extent, and/or will take place in areas ranked high on the Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat scale. Such development proposals will require a site specific review and authorization under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.

Project “risks” for the purposes of Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act are assessed without consideration of fish habitat compensation; rather, as described above, they are assessed to determine the fish habitat compensation requirement. Within the EA context, potential project-related effects are considered with respect to all forms of mitigation available, including offsets that are provided through fish habitat compensation. Therefore, even where a “risk” has been characterized as “high” in the DFO framework this does not imply that the effect associated with the activity or project is a significant adverse effect within the EA context because fish habitat compensation can be used as mitigation.

According to the DFO Risk Management Framework, aquatic effects or the Scale of Negative Effect is determined by considering the extent, duration and intensity of the Project on fish and fish habitat. The following table summarizes SCI’s re-assessment of the Scale of Negative Effects of the Project on direct fish habitat as requested using the DFO Framework by waterbody/watercourse for each attribute. The Stream 4 watershed was included in the table although the Stream 4 (Claw Lake) watershed is outside the Project footprint and no impacts are anticipated. Although PSMF discharge will be directed into Hare Lake (part of the Stream 5 watershed) no adverse effects to fish and fish habitat are predicted.

Scale of Negative Effects Summary Waterbody Extent Duration Intensity Stream 1 Low High Low Stream 2 Medium High High L14 High High High L5 Outlet Stream Low High High Stream 3 Low High High Stream 4 N/A N/A N/A Watershed Stream 5 N/A N/A N/A Watershed Stream 6 (upper Medium High High reach) Stream 6 (lower Medium High Medium reach) L26 Outlet Stream Medium High High Notes: N/A = no impacts anticipated; Extent – low = site or segment, medium = channel reach, high = entire lake or watershed; Duration – low = Short term (days), medium = medium term (weeks or months), high = long term (years or permanent); Intensity – low = habitat still usable but not as productive, medium = habitat quality significantly reduced, high = habitat quality unusable. Source: Practitioners Guide to the Risk Management Framework for DFO Habitat Management Staff (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/risk-risque/page03-eng.asp) .

To obtain an overall rating for the Scale of Negative Effect that can be plotted on the y axis of the risk assessment matrix, values were assigned as follows: 1 for low; 2 for medium; and, 3 for high. The assigned values for extent, duration and intensity were averaged for each waterbody/watercourse and then the scores for all waterbodies/watercourses were averaged. Based on this evaluation the overall rating for the Scale of Negative Effect is medium to high. This is slightly higher than the point on the risk assessment matrix originally presented in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID# 7).

Under the DFO’s Risk Management Framework, the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat is determined by considering species sensitivity, species dependence on the habitat, habitat rarity and habitat resiliency. The following table summarizes the re-assessment of the Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat by waterbody/watercourse for each attribute. Habitat in the Stream 4 and 5 watersheds were not evaluated since there are no anticipated effects on fish and fish habitat.

Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat Summary Waterbody Species Species Rarity Resiliency Sensitivity Dependence on Habitat Stream 1 Moderate Moderate Low Low Stream 2 High Moderate Low Low L14 Low Moderate Low High L5 Outlet Low Moderate Low High Stream Stream 3 High Moderate Low Moderate Stream 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Watershed Stream 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Watershed Stream 6 (upper Low Moderate Low High reach) Stream 6 (lower High Moderate Low Low reach) Notes: N/A = not evaluated since no effects anticipated; Species Sensitivity – low = species present are resilient to change (many cyprinids), moderate = species present are moderately resilient to change (e.g., pike, walleye and some cyprinids), high = species present are highly sensitive to change (many salmonids); Species Dependence on Habitat – low = used as migratory corridor only, moderate = feeding, rearing and spawning habitat, high = habitat critical to survival of species; Rarity – low = habitat/species is prevalent, moderate = species has limited distribution/confined to small areas, high = species is rare (e.g., species is listed under the Species at Risk Act); Resiliency – high = warm water thermal regime, system is stable and ephemeral flows, moderate = cool water thermal regime, system is stable and intermittent flows, low = cold water thermal regime, system is unstable and permanent flows. Source: Practitioners Guide to the Risk Management Framework for DFO Habitat Management Staff (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/role/141/1415/14155/risk-risque/page03-eng.asp).

To obtain an overall rating for the Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat that can be plotted on the x axis of the risk assessment matrix, values for species sensitivity, species dependence on habitat and rarity were assigned as follows: 1 for low; 2 for moderate; and, 3 for high. Values for habitat resiliency were assigned as follows: 1 for high; 2 for moderate; and, 3 for low. The assigned values for all attributes were averaged for each waterbody/watercourse and then the scores for all water bodies/watercourses were averaged. Based on this evaluation, the overall rating for Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat is close to moderate. This is slightly to the left of the point on the risk assessment matrix originally presented in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy (SID# 7).

In comparison to the original assessment of the Scale of Negative Effect and Sensitivity of Fish and Fish Habitat, the point on the risk assessment matrix would move up and to the left slightly. There is no change in the size of the ellipse surrounding the point on the risk assessment matrix as the level of uncertainty regarding fish species utilization of habitats within the Project area and associated with the expected impact is unchanged from the assessment presented in the Preliminary Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy. Therefore the risk to fish habitat is medium based on the point and ellipse on the risk assessment matrix. Since the Project would result in the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat, even with additional mitigation, over a long period of time the Project will require an Authorization under Subsection 35 (2) of the Fisheries Act and compensation for the lost habitat will be a requirement of the Authorization.

In summary, consideration of only the direct fish habitat did increase the risk of potential effects using the DFO risk assessment framework however; this does not change SCI’s commitment to providing fish habitat compensation as detailed conceptually in SID #7. Moreover, the increase in the characterization of risk does not alter the conclusion of the EIS which indicated that project effects on fish and fish habitat can be appropriately mitigated.

Information Request 13.7

Metals Concentrations in Fish

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.5, p. 36 (PDF 41) - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 60 (PDF 65) SID#1 - Section 2.4.1, p. 2.8 (PDF 30) - Section 3.5.13, p. 78 (PDF 109) - Section 3.5.15, p. 3.82 (PDF 113)

Contributing IRs: MOE SW-4

Rationale:

The EIS Guidelines require that the EIS "provide details of metal levels in fish. Using the baseline data on metal levels in fish muscle and liver in areas that may be impacted by effluent or seepage from the mine, the EIS shall evaluate changes in metal levels due to the Project." While the EIS provides baseline metal levels in fish for Hare Lake and Bamoos Lake, this information is not provided for the Pic River or Stream 6.

Whenever possible, baseline information should include the five core endpoints used in the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program to monitor the effects of mine effluents on receiving water biota: weight-at-age; relative gonad and liver weights; condition (i.e. body weight in relation to length); and age. In addition, baseline information should be such that it is repeatable and comparable for monitoring purposes.

Information Request:

Prior to the start of the public hearing, provide baseline information on metal levels in fish in Pic River and Stream 6. If this data is not available, sampling should be undertaken in appropriate locations. The baseline information should be used to assess the potential effects of the Project on metal levels in fish tissue in Pic River and Stream 6.

SCI RESPONSE

SCI will provide baseline information on metal levels in fish in Pic River prior to the start of the public hearings. The specific fish species to be utilized for this purpose will be decided based on discussions with local Ministry of Natural Resources staff.

At this time no mine-related drainage (Process Solids Management Facility effluent, drainage from the Mine Rock Storage Area) will be discharged to Stream 6. With this in mind, collection of fish in Stream 6 for the purposes of analyzing metal levels in tissues will serve no purpose, as no effect will occur. Should this change in connection with any optimizing of the conceptual design, this information will be collected. Information Request 13.8

Implementation of Mitigation and Monitoring

References:

EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.4, p. 58 (PDF 63) - Section 2.8.3, p. 74 (PDF 79) EIS Main Report - Section 4.4, p. 4.8 (PDF 52-53) - Section 4.1, p. 4.4 (PDF 48) SID#7 - Section 4.4.5, p. 4.10 (PDF 54)

Contributing IRs: MNR-A-32

Rationale:

Section 4.4 of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan provides an overview of the planning required to implement the compensation plan. Section 4.4.1 states that SCI will be responsible for “implementation of mitigation measures and on-site monitoring during construction [emphasis added]”. Similarly, Figure 4.1 of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan shows various features of the proposed compensation strategy requiring ongoing maintenance into the future. However, outside of the construction phase, no specific commitment is made to implement the compensation plan for the other phases of the Project during which compensation work will be carried out. While the List of Commitments provided in Table 8-7 of the Main Summary Report indicates that the responsibility for implementing all commitments rests with SCI, there is a discrepancy between the table and the text in section 4.4 of the SID.

Additionally, monitoring plans appear to only address components of the compensation plan, located within the SSA. Follow-up and effects monitoring for non-FCHP components and locations have not been addressed as per the requirements of the EIS Guidelines. Monitoring of effects for all potentially affected fish and fish habitat (direct and indirect habitat) is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the measures implemented to mitigate adverse effects of the Project.

Information Request: Clarify the follow-up and effects monitoring program that will be established for all potentially affected fish and fish habitat (direct and indirect) as well as where SCI intends to implement these monitoring programs.

Additionally, clarify the discrepancy between SID #7 and the Commitments Table regarding where the responsibility for implementing the fish habitat compensation plan rests during all phases of the Project.

SCI RESPONSE

Monitoring for potential effects on fish and fish habitats that are not related to the fish habitat compensation plan would focus on receiving environments into water associated with mine infrastructure will be discharged. As indicated in Section 7.0 of the Main EIS Report the primary basis of fish and fish habitat monitoring will be the federal Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Program as mandated through the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) of the Fisheries Act. The objective of metal mining EEM is to evaluate the effects of mine effluent on fish, fish habitat and the use of fisheries resources. To meet this objective, the EEM program requires all mines regulated under the MMER to conduct biological monitoring studies (MMER Schedule 5, Part 2), which includes a fish survey (using indicators of fish population health and fish tissue analysis) and a benthic invertebrate community survey, and effluent and water quality monitoring studies (MMER Schedule 5, Part 1) which includes effluent characterization, water quality monitoring and sublethal toxicity testing. The details associated with the EEM program are provided in technical guidance document developed by Environment Canada (20121).

There is no analogous provincial environmental monitoring framework, as it pertains to assessing effects on fish and fish habitat. There have been discussions with provincial agency staff (MNR) that have considered the potential for incorporating additional monitoring components, such as the broad-scale fish netting program, into the overall monitoring program for the site. It is assumed that any additional monitoring agreed to with MNR will be addressed in the provincial permitting process.

Monitoring within the context of fish habitat compensation planning is considered in Section 4.4.5 of SID #7. Two aspects of monitoring are considered: a compliance monitoring program to verify the conditions of the compensation plan have been met; and, follow-up monitoring to determine the efficacy of the required mitigation measures and compensation works. Given that specific fish habitat compensation options have not yet been finalized as part of a formal Fish Habitat Compensation Plan it is premature to provide specifics related to the associated monitoring program. The specific details associated with habitat compensation related monitoring will be developed within the formal Habitat Compensation Plan. As indicated, contingencies for both compliance and follow-up monitoring will be provided.

It is unclear to what discrepancy the IR refers. Both the commitments table in the Main EIS Report and SID #7 indicate that the responsibility for implementing the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan rests with SCI. Section 4.4.1 of SID #7 specifically refers implementing (i.e., constructing) the fish habitat compensation works. Section 4.4.5 of SID #7 specifically addresses issues relating to monitoring the effectiveness of any of the fish habitat compensation works.

To be clear, SCI understands its responsibility for implementing all aspects of the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan.

1 Environment Canada. 2012. Metal Mining Guidance Document for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring.