Section 6.8 Marine Aquatic Resources

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

VE51988

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.8 Marine Aquatic Resources ...... 6.8-1 6.8.1 Valued Component Selection Scoping and Rationale ...... 6.8-2 6.8.1.1 Project Interaction Matrix ...... 6.8-2 6.8.1.2 Issue Scoping and Identification ...... 6.8-4 6.8.1.3 Valued Component Selection Rationale ...... 6.8-7 6.8.2 VC #1: Marine Water Quality ...... 6.8-10 6.8.2.1 Introduction ...... 6.8-10 6.8.2.1.1 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework ..... 6.8-10 6.8.2.1.2 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6.8-10 6.8.2.1.3 Temporal Boundaries ...... 6.8-13 6.8.2.2 Information Source and Methods ...... 6.8-13 6.8.2.3 Detailed Baseline for Marine Water Quality ...... 6.8-14 6.8.2.3.1 Historical Overview ...... 6.8-14 6.8.2.3.2 2009 and 2010 Baseline Results ...... 6.8-15 6.8.2.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge ...... 6.8-19 6.8.2.4.1 Nisga’a Nation ...... 6.8-19 6.8.2.4.2 Aboriginal Groups ...... 6.8-19 6.8.2.5 Past, Present, or Future Projects / Activities ...... 6.8-19 6.8.2.6 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation ...... 6.8-20 6.8.2.6.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects ...... 6.8-20 6.8.2.7 Potential Residual Effects and Their Significance ...... 6.8-24 6.8.2.8 Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 6.8-24 6.8.2.9 Conclusion ...... 6.8-25 6.8.3 VC#2: Marine Biota ...... 6.8-25 6.8.3.1 Introduction ...... 6.8-25 6.8.3.1.1 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework ..... 6.8-25 6.8.3.1.2 Spatial Boundaries ...... 6.8-26 6.8.3.1.3 Temporal Boundaries ...... 6.8-28 6.8.3.2 Information Source and Methods ...... 6.8-28 6.8.3.3 Detailed Baseline for Marine Biota ...... 6.8-28 6.8.3.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge ...... 6.8-28 6.8.3.4.1 Nisga’a Nation ...... 6.8-28 6.8.3.4.2 Aboriginal Groups ...... 6.8-29 6.8.3.5 Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities ...... 6.8-29 6.8.3.6 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation ...... 6.8-29 6.8.3.6.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects ...... 6.8-31 6.8.3.7 Cumulative Effects Assessment ...... 6.8-33 6.8.3.8 Conclusion ...... 6.8-33

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 6.8-34

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 TOC 6.8-i

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

List of Tables

Table 6.8.1-1: Valued Component / Issue Interaction Matrix for Marine Aquatic Resources ...... 6.8-2 Table 6.8.1-2: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Construction Phase ...... 6.8-5 Table 6.8.1-3: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Operations Phase ...... 6.8-5 Table 6.8.1-4: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Closure and Decommissioning Phase ...... 6.8-6 Table 6.8.1-5: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Post Closure ...... 6.8-6 Table 6.8.1-6: Marine Aquatic Resources Valued Component Selection Rationale ...... 6.8-8 Table 6.8.2-1: Total and Dissolved Metals Concentrations (mg/L) at Water Quality Sampling Stations ...... 6.8-17 Table 6.8.2-2: Summary of Potential Interaction Between Project Direct Effects on Other Valued Components and Marine Water Quality ...... 6.8-20 Table 6.8.2-3: Predicted Average Annual Percent Change in Lime Creek Discharge to Alice Arm ...... 6.8-22 Table 6.8.2-4 : Potential Indirect Proposed Project Effects on Marine Water Quality ...... 6.8-24 Table 6.8.3-1: Summary of Potential Interaction between Project Direct and Indirect Effects on Other VCs and Marine Biota ...... 6.8-30 Table 6.8.3-2: Potential Indirect Project Effects on Marine Biota ...... 6.8-32

List of Figures

Figure 6.8.2-1: Marine Aquatic and Fisheries Resources Study Areas, Alice Arm, BC ...... 6.8-12 Figure 6.8.2-2: Seasonal Flow Distribution at Lime Creek Node LCK-H2 ...... 6.8-23 Figure 6.8.3-1: Marine Mammals Study Areas, Alice Arm, Observatory Inlet and Portland Inlet, BC ...... 6.8-27

List of Appendices

Appendix 6.8-A: Marine Aquatic Resources Baseline Report

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 TOC 6.8-ii

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8 Marine Aquatic Resources This section addresses the marine aquatic resources of the proposed Kitsault Mine Project (proposed Project), and includes an assessment of potential effects of the proposed Project on marine estuarine water quality associated with surface drainage, as well as an assessment of potential proposed Project effects on select marine biota.

Alice Arm, the closest body of seawater to the proposed Project, is located approximately 7 kilometres (km) northwest of the proposed Project site. It is one of two terminal branches of Observatory Inlet, Hasting Arm being the other. Like most North American west coast inlets, Alice Arm is a glacially-fed, steep-sided, U-shape fjord. Two major rivers, the Kitsault and Illiance rivers, and several smaller creeks, including Lime Creek, flow into the head and sides of the inlet.

The climate in the area is influenced by low-pressure systems moving eastward from the Pacific Ocean. Heavy precipitation and strong winds are typical of winter, while clearer and drier conditions prevail in the summer (Krauel 1981; Littlepage 1978).

The physical and chemical structure of the water column in Alice Arm has been well characterised and is typical of glacially fed inlets along the coast. In summer months, high runoff from snowmelt and low wind conditions produce a marked horizontal stratification of temperature and salinity (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981). During the winter, low discharge and high wind-driven mixing lead to more uniform (e.g., isothermal and isohaline) conditions throughout the inlet, with the exception of a shallow layer of cold freshwater close to the river mouths at the head of Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978).

The basic circulation pattern in Alice Arm is typical of estuarine circulation in British Columbia (BC) coastal inlets (Krauel 1981; Littlepage 1978): seawater entrained and carried seaward by river outflow is replenished by a net inflow at depth. This is also typical of shallow sill, cold-water fjords (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981).

Alice Arm provides valuable habitat for many species of benthic infauna and epifauna, fish, marine mammals, and marine birds. Baseline studies conducted in 2009 and 2010 were designed to address potential effects of the proposed Project, which included upgrades and operations of two foreshore Barge Landing Facilities, one near Kitsault Townsite and one southwest near Rocky Point, just north of the mouth of Roundy Creek (Appendix 6.8-A Marine Aquatic Resources Baseline Report). At the time, marine transport of construction supplies and ore concentrate related to the proposed Project was under consideration. Thus, the 2009 and 2010 baseline studies collected relevant baseline data at the two proposed Barge Landing Facility sites and gathered oceanographic and marine biological data to characterise the physical, chemical, and biological marine environment of Alice Arm.

In early 2011, plans to transport construction supplies and ore concentrate by barge were abandoned in favour of transport by truck. As a result, plans for upgrades to the Barge Landing Facilities and activities associated with the loading and offloading of barges were

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-1

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES discontinued. Subsequently, the proponent removed the marine transport option from the proposed Project design and it is not part of the current scope of the proposed Project.

6.8.1 Valued Component Selection Scoping and Rationale The Application Information Requirements (AIR) included a preliminary list of components for consideration including marine aquatic resource Valued Components (VCs) for the proposed Project. Specifically, the AIR listed marine water quality and marine biota as preliminary VCs. This list was validated through a VC and issue identification and scoping process which considers the results of consultation with the Working Group, including the Nisga’a Nation and Aboriginal groups, as well as scientific and regulatory concerns, and relevance to the proposed Project.

Three steps were conducted to identify marine aquatic resource VCs and key issues of the proposed Project, including the Project interaction matrix, issue scoping and identification, and VC selection rationale. The following subsections describe the results of each step, and provide a list and rationale for the marine aquatic resources VCs selected for the proposed Project.

6.8.1.1 Project Interaction Matrix The development of an interaction matrix is the primary step taken to identify potential effects of the proposed Project on the preliminary VCs identified above. This approach presents specific Project components within each phase and identifies the potential interaction that may occur with each VC. Table 6.8.1-1 below presents the interaction matrix for the Marine Aquatic Resources discipline. Three different interactions between the Project components and VCs are presented using the following symbols:

 o indicates that there is an interaction;  - indicates a key interaction; and  + indicates a potential benefit.

Table 6.8.1-1: Valued Component / Issue Interaction Matrix for Marine Aquatic Resources

Preliminary Valued Components Project Component Marine Water Quality Marine Biota Construction Phase Existing access road Equipment and machinery transportation to site including analysis of anticipated changes to traffic (e.g., type and volume) of public roads Emissions and dust generation (fugitive emissions, equipment operation and movement) Land clearing Excavating Grading

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-2

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Preliminary Valued Components Project Component Marine Water Quality Marine Biota Soil and till salvage, handling and storage, including locations, volumes and impacted areas Mine infrastructure installations Kitsault Pit development o o Expansion of exploration camp to create construction and o o permanent camps WRMF development o o TMF development o o Operation Phase Existing access road Erosion control Emissions and dust generation (fugitive dust, equipment operation and movement) Soil and till salvage, handling and storage, including locations, volumes and impacted areas Kitsault Pit mining o o Transportation of concentrate by truck Processing WRMF development o o TMF development o o Blasting Management of overburden stockpiles and waste rock dumps supported by relevant geotechnical data and stability analysis Waste water management and treatment plant o o Decommissioning and Closure Phase Soil and till salvage, handling and storage, including o o locations, volumes and effected areas (i.e., Ore and Topsoil Stockpiles) Access and mine access road decommissioning and reclamation Kitsault Pit reclamation o o WRMF area reclamation o o TMF area reclamation o o WRMF and TMF seepage management and reclamation o o Water Management Facilities reclamation (i.e., sediment o o and seepage ponds, pipelines, cofferdams, pumping systems and diversion ditches) Stream drainage restoration Fish habitat compensation

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-3

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Preliminary Valued Components Project Component Marine Water Quality Marine Biota Post Closure Monitoring and maintenance of soil stability and vegetation Monitoring and maintenance of mine drainage conditions o o Kitsault Pit and associated discharging water o o Legend: o - interaction; - - key interaction; + - benefit Note: TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

6.8.1.2 Issue Scoping and Identification The interactions identified above for each Project component is further refined through the potential issues scoping review. This approach is presented separately for each phase of the proposed Project and identifies the key issues and rationale for inclusion within the effects assessment. Two key issues associated with marine aquatic resource VCs were identified as follows:

 Alteration of marine near-shore water quality near the mouth of Lime Creek: Discharge of treated sewage, contact water from the Tailings Management Facility (TMF), the Waste Rock Management Facility (WRMF), the low grade (ore) stockpile (LGS), and the Kitsault Pit; and discharge of pit lake waters and potential acid rock drainage (ARD) may indirectly alter marine water quality in nearshore marine waters near the mouth of Lime Creek; and  Alteration of marine near-shore salinity near the mouth of Lime Creek: Changes in magnitude of Lime Creek freshwater discharge to the marine environment from surface water and groundwater management activities related to the proposed Project may alter salinity characteristics in the marine near-shore waters near the mouth of Lime Creek. Changes in salinity may alter benthic invertebrate assemblages, which could potentially affect fish foraging behaviour.

These key issues are carried forward into the effects assessment. Tables 6.8.1-2 to 6.8.1-5 present an overview of the potential issues and the associated VC.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-4

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.1-2: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Construction Phase

Valued Project Component Relevant Key Issues Rationale Component(s) Kitsault Pit Development Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Expansion of exploration Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in camp to create shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and construction and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity permanent camps WRMF development Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity TMF development Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Note: TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

Table 6.8.1-3: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Operations Phase

Valued Project Component Relevant Key Issues Rationale Component(s) Kitsault Pit Mining Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity WRMF development Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity TMF development Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Waste water Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in management and shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and treatment plant of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Note: TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-5

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.1-4: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Closure and Decommissioning Phase

Valued Project Component Relevant Key Issues Rationale Component(s) Soil and till salvage, Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in handling and storage, shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and including locations, of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity volumes and effected areas (i.e., Ore and Topsoil Stockpiles) Kitsault Pit reclamation Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity WRMF area reclamation Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity TMF area reclamation Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity WRMF and TMF Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in seepage management shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and and reclamation of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Water Management Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in Facilities reclamation shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and (i.e., sediment and of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity seepage ponds, pipelines, cofferdams, pumping systems and diversion ditches) Note: TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

Table 6.8.1-5: Potential Key Issues by Project Component and Valued Component – Post Closure

Valued Project Component Relevant Key Issues Rationale Component(s) Monitoring and Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in maintenance of mine shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and drainage conditions of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Kitsault Pit and Alteration of marine near Marine Water Potential alteration in associated discharging shore water quality; alteration Quality, freshwater quality and water of marine near shore salinity Marine Biota freshwater quantity Note: TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-6

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.1.3 Valued Component Selection Rationale The VC and issues identification scoping process recognised two key issues for each preliminary VC related to the Marine Aquatic Resources discipline. The relevance of these VCs was validated through the consideration of interactions with proposed Project activities, scientific literature, the Nisga’a Nation, Aboriginal groups, government regulations, land management plans and other stakeholders (Table 6.8.1-6).

The following two VCs were selected for marine aquatic resources based on the following rationale. Further validation is presented in each VC discussion section:

 Marine Water Quality VC - Marine water quality refers to the overall chemical composition of marine water (dissolved constituents and salinity); and  Marine Biota VC - Marine biota refers to plankton, intertidal and shallow subtidal benthic invertebrates, marine fishes, marine mammals, and marine birds.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-7

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.1-6: Marine Aquatic Resources Valued Component Selection Rationale

Rationale

Scientific Land and Federal and Valued Interaction with Applicable The Public and Literature and Nisga’a Lisims Aboriginal Groups Resource Provincial Component Proposed Project Government Other Professional Government Included by BC EAO Management Regulations Activities Agencies Stakeholders Judgement Plans and Guidelines

Marine Alteration of Identified by Identified as a key Metlakatla First DFO; EC; PNCIMA; Marine water National and water surface water AMEC and the issue raised by Nation have BC MOE Central quality is BC MOE quality quality in Lime proponent. Nisga’a citizens marine interests. and North valued by Water Creek may affect and NLG. Kitsumkalum and Coast the general Quality marine water Kitselas First EBM (BC public, Guidelines Alice Arm is an quality Nations have ILMB NGOs, and (BC MOE important food marine interests in 2008) industry 2006) for harvesting area and around Prince protection of with the southern Rupert marine portion designated (approximately aquatic life; as a treaty-defined 175 km southwest Fisheries Nisga’a Nation- of the proposed Act; Oceans exclusive intertidal Project) Act bivalve area.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-8

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Rationale

Marine Alteration to marine Provincially Nisga’a citizens Metlakatla First DFO; EC; PNCIMA; All residents Fisheries biota water quality may and federally have a treaty- Nation have BC MOE Central in the Act; SARA; affect benthic listed species defined right to marine interests. and North proposed Oceans Act populations, fish, or along with certain aquatic Kitsumkalum and Coast Project area marine mammals. important plants as defined Kitselas First EBM (BC including the shellfish and in the Nisga’a Nations have ILMB 2009 Nisga’a fisheries Final Agreement marine interests in Draft) Nation, resources. and are important and around Prince Aboriginal to Nisga’a citizens Rupert groups, for consumption, (approximately fishers, social, and 175 km southwest tourists, ceremonial of the proposed NLG purposes. Project) Note: AMEC - AMEC Earth and Environmental; BC EAO - British Columbia Environmental Office; BC ILMB - British Columbia Integrated Land Management Bureau; BC MOE - British Columbia Ministry of Environment; DFO - Fisheries and Oceans Canada; EBM - Ecosystem-Based Management; EC - Environment Canada; km - kilometre; NGO - Non-Government Organisation; NLG - Nisga’a Lisims Government; PNCIMA - Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area; SARA - Species at Risk Act

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-9

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.2 VC #1: Marine Water Quality 6.8.2.1 Introduction Marine water quality influences the types of biota that can use marine waters near the proposed Project and the health of these organisms. Water quality was selected as a VC to assess whether the proposed Project will de-grade nearshore marine water quality near the mouth of Lime Creek and potentially affect the behaviour or health of marine biota provides. The deposition of chemical contaminants adsorbed to waterborne particulates may also affect sediment quality, which provides habitat for benthic marine invertebrates. Contaminants, whether in dissolved form or particle-bound, may affect marine biota by direct uptake or through the consumption of prey items that have accumulated chemical contaminants.

Proposed Project activities could result in changes in marine water quality. Specific issues considered include:

 Marine water chemistry; and  Marine water salinity.

6.8.2.1.1 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework Surface water discharge from a mine is regulated under the Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 1985) as set out by water quality criteria in the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation (MMER) (Government of Canada 2002). MMER has concentrations (or values negotiated with Environment Canada (EC)) that must be met as a permit legal requirement at the discharge point.

BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE) (2003; 2006a, b; 2008; 2009), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2007), and Health Canada (HC) (2010) have guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic life and drinking water at a point downstream of a dilution zone; alternately, site-specific water quality objectives may be set. BC MOE and CCME also have guidelines for the protection of marine aquatic life. Guidelines are not regulatory enforcement standards but triggers for action if exceeded.

6.8.2.1.2 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries for the marine water quality VC were limited to the geographic areas having a reasonable expectation of indirect Project effects. Three study areas were identified for the proposed Project:

 A Local Study Area (LSA) which encompasses a 5-km-long section of near-shore area along the eastern side of Alice Arm, extending from the vicinity of the Illiance River at the head of the inlet to southwest of Roundy Creek (Figure 6.8.2-1). This area includes two existing permitted Barge Landing Facilities, a historical submarine tailings disposal outfall, and a historical log sorting and disposal site;  A Regional Study Area (RSA) that encompasses the entire length of Alice Arm; and

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-10

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

 A Cumulative Effects Study Area (CESA), which includes the area where past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human activities are likely to overlap temporally and spatially with potential residual effects of the proposed Project. The CESA is identical to the RSA.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-11

KITSAULT RIVER Legend Access Road

K E E Mine Site Road FALL R S K C C

R E EEK S Transmission Line KITSAULT RIVER K E U ILA R W C Stream Y E L R Waterbody O M FOXY CREEK Barge Landing Facility R VE ILLIANCE R I Process Plant Open Pit Ore Stockpile Waste Rock Management Facility C ALICE L AR Tailings Beach ARM Y HASTINGS C R EEK Barge Landing Facility KITSAULT Tailings Management Facility (TMF) ARM (Kitsault Townsite) TOWNSITE KITSAULT FSR Supernatant Pond (ALICE ARM ROAD) CLARY L LAKE IM Local Study Area E Barge Landing C Facility (Log Sort) RE CARNEY LAKE EK Regional Study Area

A R

A O

C U

C N ALASKA R D

E Y

E C

K R KEY MAP E E K YUKON NORTHWEST TERRITORIES EK E R C Fort Nelson K ARY T Juneau E O UT P E B A TRI TS BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA R Y R C O Y U K S E T N A H E Fort St. John D P Stewart AN R S Y C Project Location

C C R M E EE R LI K E E Kitimat Edmonton K Prince George

BESSIE LAKE Calgary

Kamloops Kelowna

Vancouver

Victoria UNITED STATES LIDDLE CHANNEL UNITED STATES L 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 'A T A H Kilometres IN W Scale:1:80,000 G I S OBSERVATION K INLET Reference 1. Base Data Geobase 1:20,000 (TRIM) Land and Resource Data Warehouse 1:20,000 (TRIM) 2. Project Infrastructure Supplied by AMEC and Knight Piesold on March 2011

CLIENT: Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd.

PROJECT: Kitsault Mine Project KIIST LS CRE K E EK Marine Aquatic and Fisheries Resources Study Areas, Alice Arm, BC

DATE: ANALYST: November 2011 MY Figure

JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: VE51988 SB 20-50-014_marine_aq_fisheries_study.pdf

GIS FILE: 20-50-014.mxd

PROJECTION: DATUM: UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y:\GIS\Projects\VE\VE51988_Kitsault\Mapping\20_oceanography\20-50-014.mxd

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.2.1.3 Temporal Boundaries Temporal boundary selection was based on a reasonable expectation of the time over which the proposed Project would have effects on biophysical and human environment receptors.

Preliminary temporal boundaries of the proposed Project, which are contingent on permitting, include four primary phases:

1. Construction Phase - estimated 25 month period. Includes: o Site clearing and preparation, earthworks such as excavating and site grading; o Facilities, such as the mine processing facilities, TMF South Embankment, and water management facilities; o Camp complex; and o May include the Patsy Creek diversion. 2. Operations Phase - estimated at approximately two months of commissioning, and 15 to 16 years of mining (last two years are milling low grade ore). 3. Decommissioning and Closure Phase - estimated at 15 to 17 years. Includes a closure period during which the buildings and un-needed infrastructure would be removed and the sites reclaimed. 4. Post-Closure Phase - estimated at five years or more. This includes post-closure monitoring until on-site water quality has stabilised and indicates no future adverse effects on local receiving waters. Stabilisation of the WRMF and TMF would also be considered in post-closure monitoring.

Seasonal variations in water parameters in Alice Arm are heavily influenced by climate and freshwater runoff. In the summer and late fall, high runoff from snow melt (summer) and maximum rainfall (fall), coupled with low wind conditions results in a marked horizontal stratification of the water column (Krauel 1981; Littlepage 1978; Appendix 6.5-D), with a layer of relatively fresh, warm water present in the uppermost 5 metres (m). Low runoff and high wind conditions during winter months lead to a more uniform (isothermal and isohaline conditions) water column with the exception of a shallow layer of cold freshwater at the head of Alice Arm, close to the mouths of the rivers (Littlepage 1978). The mean annual precipitation is estimated to be 2000 millimetres (mm), while the mean annual discharge from Lime Creek (Appendix 6.5-D) is 1.97 m3/sec. Approximately 1.6 billion cubic metres (m3) of fresh water is discharged annually into Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978).

6.8.2.2 Information Source and Methods A review of historical oceanographic and marine biological studies of Alice Arm published over the last 40 years was conducted which included technical reports, journal articles, and studies by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and EC. These studies collectively document the impact to the marine environment attributable to submarine tailings disposal into Alice Arm associated with historical mining activities at the Kitsault deposit and

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-13

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES discharges from other regional mining sites. Results of these studies are summarised in Appendix 6.8-A.

Baseline studies were conducted during 2009 and 2010 to characterise marine water quality in Alice Arm (Rescan 2010a; Appendix 6.8-A).

6.8.2.3 Detailed Baseline for Marine Water Quality 6.8.2.3.1 Historical Overview Alice Arm has two major rivers, the Kitsault and Illiance Rivers, and several smaller creeks flowing into the head and sides of the inlet, resulting in a typical estuarine circulation pattern where brackish surface waters flowing seawards is replaced by inward-flowing, deep water. Approximately 1.6 x 109 m3 of freshwater is discharged annually into Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978). While Alice Arm is hydrographically isolated by the presence of shallow sills, bottom water replenishment is sufficient to prevent oxygen depletion (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981; Losher 1985).

The physical and chemical structure of the Alice Arm water column has been well characterised (Appendix 6.8-A, Table 1.2-1). The distribution of temperature and salinity in coastal inlets of BC such as Alice Arm is heavily influenced by freshwater discharge. In summer months, high runoff from snow melt produces a marked horizontal stratification of temperature and salinity in Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981; Losher 1985). Low discharge during winter months (December through January) leads to isothermal and isohaline conditions throughout the inlet, with the exception of a shallow layer of cold freshwater close to the river mouths at the head of Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978).

Maximum surface temperature midway along Alice Arm ranges from 14 degrees Celcius (°C) in the summer to 6.5°C in the winter (Krauel 1981). Surface salinity varies from a winter high of 29 parts per thousand (ppt) to a summer low of 0 ppt (Krauel 1981). Deep water temperature and salinity within Alice Arm vary slightly throughout the year. At a depth of 300 m, minimum and maximum temperatures are 4.4°C and 6.1°C, respectively, and salinity averages 31 ppt (Krauel 1981).

Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Alice Arm remain high throughout the year in both shallow and deep waters, with bottom values never dropping below 50 percent (%) saturation, indicating frequent renewals (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981).

Surface and deep water currents demonstrate a net outflow in the upper layer of the water column due to river inflow and entrained saline water, and a diffuse, weak seawater inflow in deeper waters, which is typical of shallow sill, cold water fjords (Littlepage 1978; Krauel 1981).

Turbidity in Alice Arm is typical of glacially-fed inlets (Littlepage 1978). Light transmission, as measured by transmissometer, is less than 11% in surface waters (upper 2 to 5 m, increasing to >50%, below 10 m. Measurements in water deeper than 50 m occasionally exceeded 90%.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-14

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

There is a positive relationship between total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity (Goyette et al. 1985). Surface water (0-50 m) TSS concentrations are higher in the fall (43- 45 milligrams per litre (mg/L)) than in the summer (7 mg/L), with the Kitsault River contributing the majority of particulates to the estuary of Alice Arm (Hinder and Goyette 1982). Deep water TSS concentrations decrease away from the head of Alice Arm before increasing in the vicinity of Hans Creek.

There is limited historical information available about the water quality of Alice Arm. Metals concentrations, including cadmium, copper, iron, lead, molybdenum, silver, and zinc, as well as several others, were measured from Alice Arm and Hastings Arm, and from nearby freshwater streams prior to the reopening of the Amax / Kitsault mine and submarine tailings disposal (Littlepage 1978; Hinder and Goyette 1982a). Metal concentrations in Alice Arm were all below mean seawater concentrations for these metals (Littlepage 1978).

6.8.2.3.2 2009 and 2010 Baseline Results Thermohaline profiles collected during the summer season demonstrate that Alice Arm was strongly stratified, which is typical of coastal BC waters as less dense surface water flows seaward while denser bottom water flows up-inlet (Rescan 2010a). The surface layer in Alice Arm was much warmer and less saline than deeper waters, with the pycnocline located at approximately 10 m at all sites. The surface layer consisted primarily of freshwater in the upper 3 m due to the inputs from the surrounding streams and rivers. Between 3 m and the base of the pycnocline, salinities were much lower than the bottom waters. Overall, temperatures and salinities were 12 - 15°C and 2 - 15 ppt in the upper 3 m, 9 - 12°C and 12 - 24 ppt between 3 m and 10 m, and approached 7°C and 29 ppt at about 20 m (Rescan 2010a).

Similar to the summer, autumn profiles showed evidence of the vertical stratification that is present during estuarine circulation (Rescan (2010a)). Surface temperatures were between 11°C and 12°C within the inlet and below 11°C just outside of Alice Arm. Surface salinities were between 8 and 16 ppt and the surface waters were more saline towards the head of the inlet than near the mouth. This may be due to the inflow of water from Hans Creek near these sites. Deep-water temperatures generally ranged between 6 and 7°C with salinities between 24 and 25 ppt.

Specific conductivity and salinity profiles demonstrate a freshwater lens situated above denser and more saline marine waters. The freshwater lens results from discharges of the Kitsault and Illiance Rivers and Lime Creek into the head of Alice Arm. The freshwater lens was relatively shallow. At a depth of 2 m, specific conductivity and salinity increased to and continued to increase to a depth of about 25 m.

TSS concentrations were lowest in surficial water and higher in deeper water. Surficial water TSS decreased with distance from the Kitsault River, with the lowest surficial water turbidity recorded at the mouth of Lime Creek.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-15

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Concentrations of total aluminum, iron, manganese, and, to a lesser degree, copper, lead, and zinc were higher in surface waters than at depth. This suggests that these metals are entering Alice Arm through riverine inputs.

The total and dissolved concentrations of barium, boron, calcium, magnesium, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, strontium, and uranium were nearly identical, indicating that these elements occurred primarily in the dissolved state, rather than bound to particulates. Alternatively, the total concentrations of iron, manganese, and silicon were higher than their dissolved concentrations, indicating both particulate-bound and dissolved fractions contributed to the total concentrations of these elements, with the particulate-bound fraction predominating (Table 6.8.2-1).

The concentrations of boron, calcium, magnesium, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, strontium, and uranium were typically at lower concentrations in surficial water samples than in deep water samples, indicating that the deep water samples were more marine in nature than surficial waters. Alternatively, the concentrations of barium, iron, manganese, and silicon were typically higher in surficial waters, possibly indicating the influence of freshwater discharges from the Kitsault and Illiance Rivers and Lime Creek on surface water chemistry (Table 6.8.2-1).

The only element exceeding water quality guidelines is boron, which exceeded the guideline at every station (Table 6.8.2-1). The water quality guideline for boron of 1.2 mg/L is lower than the concentration of boron reported in natural seawater of 4.4 mg/L (Bearman 1989).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-16

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.2-1: Total and Dissolved Metals Concentrations (mg/L) at Water Quality Sampling Stations

Mouth of Kitsault River Mouth of Illiance River Mouth of Lime Creek Shallow (1.1 m) Deep (8.1 m) Shallow (1.3 m) Deep (8 m) Shallow (1.4 m) Deep (8.1 m) Parameter Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Aluminum <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 Antimony <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Arsenic <0.030 <0.030 <0.050 <0.050 <0.030 <0.030 <0.030 <0.040 <0.030 <0.040 <0.040 <0.050 Barium 0.0249 0.0232 0.0154 0.0140 0.0314 0.0242 0.0142 0.0127 0.0186 0.0190 0.0137 0.0135 Beryllium <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Bismuth <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Boron 2.16 2.17 3.50 3.39 2.34 2.06 3.15 3.35 2.80 3.04 3.59 3.44 Cadmium <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 <0.0017 Calcium 207 208 318 307 215 192 282 296 257 269 310 305 Chromium <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 Cobalt <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Copper <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Iron 0.27 <0.10 0.12 <0.10 0.26 <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Lead <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Lithium <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Magnesium 658 666 1020 1010 677 612 925 960 819 880 1010 998 Manganese 0.0288 0.0163 0.0122 0.0055 0.0258 0.0141 0.0087 <0.0050 0.0110 0.0072 0.0054 <0.0050 Mercury <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 Molybdenum <0.0050 0.0076 0.0080 0.0066 0.0055 0.0053 0.0069 0.0073 0.0080 0.0083 0.0082 0.0078 Nickel <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Phosphorus <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <6.0 <6.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 Potassium 198 202 317 309 207 186 277 291 247 265 308 301 Selenium <0.10 <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 Silicon 1.75 0.80 1.13 0.82 1.40 0.86 <1.0 <1.0 1.03 0.77 1.03 0.84

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-17

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-18

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.2.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge 6.8.2.4.1 Nisga’a Nation The Nisga’a Nation has an interest in marine water quality to support continued Nisga’a Nation marine harvest rights as defined in the Nisga’a Final Agreement (NFA) (BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (BC MARR) 2000). The proposed Project lies within the Nass Area as delineated by the NFA. Nisga’a Nation people have and continue to inhabit and use the area in and around the Nass River for thousands of years. Nisga’a Nation people fish, trap, and hunt a wide variety of marine and terrestrial species, and use and consume a range of aquatic and terrestrial plants.

The NFA defines Nisga’a Nation rights to harvest marine resources, including aquatic plants, throughout the Nass Area, and, in particular, south of the proposed Project site. The maintenance of water quality in the Nisga’a Nation-exclusive intertidal bivalve harvest (in the northern part of Observatory Inlet extending to the southern portion of Alice Arm) is especially critical during harvest periods between 1 October and 31 March.

During open houses in Nisga’a Villages, Nisga’a citizens raised concerns about marine water quality as it relates to food safety and availability, especially given the legacy issues related to the previous operation of the former Kitsault mine.

6.8.2.4.2 Aboriginal Groups Of the five potentially affected First Nations groups, the Metlakatla has marine interests, including marine water quality, adjacent to the proposed Project. Kitsumkalum First Nation and Kitselas First Nation also have marine interests in and around Prince Rupert approximately 175 km southwest of the project along Observatory Inlet. According to desk- based, publicly available sources, the Metlakatla First Nation (as part of the larger Coastal Tsimshian group) have and continue to use marine resources, including fish, shellfish, herring eggs, oolichan, seal grease, berries, and seaweed, for food, social, ceremonial, and commercial purposes. Maintenance of marine water quality is important for continued Metlakatla marine harvest.

6.8.2.5 Past, Present, or Future Projects / Activities Historically, marine water quality in Alice Arm has been affected by mining activities that have occurred intermittently within the region since the early 1900s. The Dolly Varden silver mine, which operated from 1911 to 1959, discharged barium-rich tailings into the Kitsault River; these tailings were transported 30 km to enter the head of Alice Arm (Littlepage 1978; Burd et al. 2000). The primary metal contamination associated with the Dolly Varden silver mine activities is from barium, cadmium, lead, and zinc (Burd et al. 2000). The BC Molybdenum mine (former Kitsault mine), located near the headwaters of Lime Creek, operated from 1966 to 1972 and disposed of approximately 10 million tonnes (Mt) of tailings into Lime Creek. Burd et al. (2000) notes that tailings from Lime Creek entered surface waters near the head of Alice Arm. Finally, AMAX, operating the same Kitsault mine, discharged approximately 4 Mt of tailings from a submarine disposal pipe at a depth of 50 m

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-19

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES in Alice Arm (Burd et al. 2000). This discharge occurred for a period of 18 months, ending in October 1982. The main metal contaminants associated with Kitsault mining activities are cadmium, lead, molybdenum, and zinc (Burd et al. 2000).

Current water quality does not appear to be affected by these historical discharges, as baseline studies of the water concentrations for the metals associated with the tailings discharges were all below national and provincial water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (Appendix 6.8-A).

6.8.2.6 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation 6.8.2.6.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects Table 6.8.2-2 identifies potential direct effects of proposed Project activity interactions between proposed Project water management activities on surface hydrology and freshwater quality VCs and marine water quality. The proposed Project will not have any direct effects on marine water quality given that no Project activities will be conducted in, or along, marine waters of Alice Arm. Direct effects on freshwater quality and quantity in Lime Creek may have some affect (interaction) with marine water near the mouth of Lime Creek.

Table 6.8.2-2: Summary of Potential Interaction Between Project Direct Effects on Other Valued Components and Marine Water Quality

Direct Project Use Social Health

Effect Quality Change Change Heritage Economic Economic Hydrogeology Hydrogeology a’a Nation Land Use Use Land Nation a’a Surface Hydrology Noise and Vibration Groundwater Quality Quality Groundwater Freshwater Fisheries Environmental Health Air Quality and Climate Terrestrial Environment Aboriginal Groups Land Land Groups Aboriginal Nisg Wildlife and Their Habitat Their and Wildlife Freshwater and Sediment and Sediment Freshwater Marine NI NI NI NI o o NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI water quality Interaction definitions: - o interaction; - - key interaction; + - benefit; NI - no interaction

6.8.2.6.1.1 Alteration of Surface Water Quality The proposed Project would discharge treated sewage and site contact water from the TMF, WRMF, LGS and Kitsault Pit into Lime Creek, approximately 7 km upstream of where it enters Alice Arm. A modular Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) would be installed for the construction camp. The STP would be downsized during the proposed Project operations phase to meet the demands of the smaller-sized operations staff. Sewage would be treated and discharged to the TMF. During mine operations, contact water from the TMF, WRMF, LGS, and Kitsault Pit would be directed to a single-point discharge west of the Kitsault Pit, in the remnants of Patsy Creek, just upstream of its confluence with Lime Creek (Appendix 6.5-B).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-20

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

During mine closure, excess water discharge from the TMF would flow into the Kitsault Pit, creating a pit lake that is expected to fill in thirteen to fifteen years. Excess water from the pit lake would discharge through a spillway into Lime Creek. Test work has indicated that generation of ARD in site contact waters is predicted to start several decades after mine closure (see Section 3.4). If water quality objectives in the pit lake are not met due to the generation of ARD, post-closure activities would include treatment. It is assumed water treatment may need to be initiated approximately 30 years after the closure of the mine (Appendix 6.5-B).

Water quality modeling was conducted to predict metal concentrations within Lime Creek during the different phases of the proposed Project (Appendix 6.5-D). The metal concentrations of cadmium and copper in water discharged into Alice Arm are predicted to exceed the “BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines” (BC MOE 2006b) for marine waters during portions of all phases of the proposed Project. It is important to note that concentrations of cadmium and copper exceeded BC Water Quality Guidelines during baseline studies. The surface water quality Environmental Assessment (EA) (Section 6.6) did not find any significant residual effects to surface (fresh) water from the proposed Project. There were predicted CCME and / or BC MOE exceedances for 6 parameters in lower Lime Creek. However, many of these parameters exceeded guidelines during baseline sampling programs. There were no predicted exceedances in the Illiance River from the proposed Project. As the predicted residual effects to surface (fresh) water have been rated as not significant (minor) there are no predicted residual effects to marine water quality from the alteration of surface freshwater quality.

6.8.2.6.1.2 Hydrology Surface water and groundwater management activities for the proposed Project are predicted to reduce the volume of freshwater discharged from Lime Creek into Alice Arm during the construction, operations, and closure phases of the proposed Project. A watershed model to simulate monthly groundwater and surface water flows at various locations in the vicinity of the proposed Project was developed and used to assess the potential effect on surface water hydrology VCs for all phases of the mine.

During the construction phase, baseline flows would not be altered in Lime Creek until the onset of construction phase 2 when the average annual discharge is predicted to decline by 20%.

Lime Creek discharge was modeled for years 13 and 15 of the operations phase. During year 15 of operations, low grade ore would begin to be processed and the Kitsault Pit would begin to be filled. The filling of the Kitsault Pit is assumed to be the worst-case-scenario for flow reductions within Lime Creek (Appendix 6.5-D). Three different water management scenarios were evaluated for year 15, with predicted average annual flow reductions ranging from 20 to 29% (Table 6.8.2-4).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-21

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.2-3: Predicted Average Annual Percent Change in Lime Creek Discharge to Alice Arm

Estimated Duration Average Annual Change in Lime Creek Project Phase (years) Discharge from Baseline Conditions Construction phase 11 0% Construction phase 2 and 32 -20% Operations year 13 1 -14% Operations year 15 scenario A3 1 -20% Operations year 15 scenario B4 1 -23% Operations year 15 scenario C5 1 -29% Closure 15 -17% Post-closure 34 2% Note: 1. Construction Phase 1: Water is being pumped from behind temporary cofferdams; flows are assumed to be maintained at baseline levels. 2. Construction Phase 2: Water is being stored behind the south embankment. 3. Scenario A: Patsy Creek diversion channel is maintained, TMF excess water is discharged to Lime Creek. 4. Scenario B: Patsy Creek diversion channel is maintained, TMF excess water is discharged into the Kitsault Pit. 5. Scenario C: Patsy Creek diversion channel is breached, TMF excess water is discharged into the Kitsault Pit.

During the closure phase of the proposed Project, average annual discharge from Lime Creek is predicted to be reduced by 17% (Table 6.8.2-3). The average annual Lime Creek discharge during the post-closure phase is predicted to increase by 2% above baseline conditions (Appendix 6.5-D).

Seasonal distribution of average annual flows estimated for Lime Creek at node LCK-H2 for baseline, construction, operations, decommissioning and closure, and post-closure phases of the mine are presented in Figure 6.8.2-2. The figure shows seasonal distribution as a percentage of the total expected annual average flow for each phase of the mine. Figure 6.8.2-2 shows that mining activities are not expected to affect the seasonal flow distribution only the expected quantity of flow.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-22

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

20% (%) 18%

16%

14% Distribution

12% Flow

10%

8% Conditions

4% Average

Monthly 0% 123456789101112 Month of the Year

Baseline Construction Operation Decommissioning and Closure Post Closure

Figure 6.8.2-2: Seasonal Flow Distribution at Lime Creek Node LCK-H2

Water management activities associated with the proposed Project are projected to decrease the annual average flow at the mouth of Lime Creek compared to baseline flow conditions (Appendix 6.5-D). This has the potential to alter the salinity within Alice Arm; however, given the relatively small contribution of Lime Creek discharge (5%) to Alice Arm compared to those of the Kitsault River (57%), the Illiance River (17%), and other smaller creeks (Krauel 1981), any reduction in Lime Creek freshwater discharge to Alice Arm will have a negligible effect on salinity of Alice Arm.

As the predicted residual effects from the proposed Project to hydrology have been rated as not significant (minor), there are no predicted residual effects to marine water quality from the alteration to surface freshwater quantity.

6.8.2.6.1.3 Summary The two potential effects (alteration of surface water quantity and quality in Lime Creek) that may have indirect effects on marine water quality have both been assessed (Sections 6.5 and 6.6). The alterations to surface water quantity and water quality in Lime Creek were found to not have a significant effect on marine aquatic VCs. No potential direct effects of

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-23

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES the proposed Project on marine water quality will occur during the life of the proposed Project given that no activities related to the proposed Project will be conducted in the marine waters or along the shoreline of Alice Arm. Consequently, there is no potential for effects from the proposed Project on marine water quality to have indirect effects on other VCs.

Table 6.8.2-5 summarises potential indirect effects of the proposed Project on marine water quality and whether they need to be carried forward to assess any potential residual effects and their significance. As there are no potential direct effects on marine water quality a “Combined Proposed Project Effects on Marine Water Quality” Table is not presented in this section as it has been for other VCs.

Table 6.8.2-4 : Potential Indirect Proposed Project Effects on Marine Water Quality

Direct Project Carry Project Potential Indirect Project Effect (Adverse Forward Rationale Phase Effect of Positive) (Yes / No)

Alteration of C, O, If water quality in Lime No Proposed Project design surface water D/C, Creek is de-graded, measures are in place to quality in Lime PC marine water quality ensure that water quality will Creek. near the mouth of the not be significantly affected. creek may be affected Therefore marine water quality will not be affected. Alteration of C, O, Changes in freshwater No The projected alteration to Lime Creek D/C, discharge from Lime Lime Creek discharge into discharge. PC Creek may change Alice Arm will not be a salinity characteristics of significant effect to surface marine waters near the hydrology. This combined with mouth of the creek. small discharge volume of Lime Creek will mean that marine water quality will not be affected. Project Phases: C - construction; D/C - decommissioning and closure; O - operations; PC - post-closure Note: ARD - acid rock drainage; LGS - low grade (ore) stockpile; TMF - Tailings Management Facility; WRMF - Waste Rock Management Facility

6.8.2.7 Potential Residual Effects and Their Significance As development of the proposed Project would not have any residual effects on the marine water quality VC, their significance is not rated.

6.8.2.8 Cumulative Effects Assessment There are no residual effects associated with the marine water quality VC; therefore, a CEA has not been conducted for this VC.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 December 2011 Page 6.8-24

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.2.9 Conclusion Proposed Project design measures are in place to ensure that surface water quality and quantity discharges to nearshore marine waters will not be significantly affected; therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required to maintain marine water quality. Assessments indicate that no residual or cumulative effects to marine water quality are anticipated and thus, no indirect effects of changes in marine quality on other VCs (marine biota) are predicted.

6.8.3 VC#2: Marine Biota 6.8.3.1 Introduction Marine biota of Alice Arm encompasses planktonic organisms, benthic invertebrate infauna and epifauna, marine fish and marine mammals. Changes in marine water quality has the potential to affect all type of marine biota. The proposed Project will not have any direct effects on marine biota as no activities related to the proposed Project will occur in marine waters or along the shoreline of Alice Arm. The proposed Project may change baseline freshwater quality and discharge from Lime Creek to Alice Arm during mining operations, which could potentially affect marine water quality and salinity characteristics near the mouth of the creek. Any changes in marine water quality or salinity are expected to be restricted to a very limited area near the creek’s mouth given the large dilution of creek discharge in Alice Arm. Changes in marine water quality and salinity could affect the species composition of benthic infauna and epifauna near the creek’s mouth thereby, affecting other marine biota; however, given the relatively small contribution of Lime Creek discharge compared to those of the Kitsault and Illiance Rivers (see Section 6.8.2.6), any changes to Lime Creek discharge are not expected to have measurable effects on marine biota.

6.8.3.1.1 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework The Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 1985) provides regulatory control to protect fish and fish habitat, which includes spawning and nursery grounds, rearing, food supply and migration areas that fish depend on directly or indirectly. Under the Fisheries Act, marine invertebrates are considered fish and, therefore, are legally protected. Marine mammals are also protected under the Marine Mammal Regulations (Government of Canada 1993) of the Fisheries Act.

Six marine mammal species of conservation concern potentially occur in Alice Arm: grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus); harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); northern resident population orca (Orcinus orca); west coast transient population orca (Orcinus orca); and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (Rescan 2010a). These species and their habitats are provided special protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada 2002).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-25

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.3.1.2 Spatial Boundaries Study areas were established for:

 Marine fish and fish habitat: The LSA included near-shore areas along a 5-km-long section of the east side of Alice Arm in the vicinity of Roundy Creek, Lime Creek, and the Kitsault Townsite. No RSA was established (Figure 6.8.3-1);  Marine mammals: The LSA was defined as the whole of Alice Arm and the RSA was defined as all of Observatory Inlet and Portland Inlet (Figure 6.8.3-1); and  Benthic infauna and epifauna: The LSA for marine benthic infauna and epifauna surveys spanned from the head of the inlet to approximately 5 km seaward; the RSA included all of Alice Arm (Figure 6.8.3-1).

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-26

Legend Populated Place Transmission Line Road Highway Kitsault Alice Arm International / Provincial Border Townsite Barge Landing Facility CE A ALI RM Kitsault Mine Project Local Study Area

Kitsault Mine Location Regional Study Area

Nass Camp

ALASKA KEY MAP New Aiyansh YUKON NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Fort Nelson Juneau T E BRITISH COLUMBIA ALBERTA L N I 113 Y R O T Fort St. John A Stewart S V Project Location E R T E A S T B S O Edmonton A Kitimat Prince George D D E A T I N N A U C Calgary Laxgalts'ap Kamloops Kelowna Gingolx 113 Vancouver Victoria UNITED STATES

0 5 10 20UNITED STATES

Kilometres Scale:1:450,000

Reference 1. Base Data Bing Map 2011 CLIENT:

T Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. LE IN D N LA T PROJECT: R O P Kitsault Mine Project

Marine Mammals Study Areas, Alice Arm, Observatory Inlet and Portland Inlet, BC DATE: ANALYST: November 2011 MY Figure JOB No: QA/QC: PDF FILE: VE51988 TT 20-50-005_marine_study_area_2009.pdf

GIS FILE: 20-50-005.mxd

PROJECTION: DATUM: UTM Zone 9 NAD83 Y:\GIS\Projects\VE\VE51988_Kitsault\Mapping\20_oceanography\20-50-005.mxd

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.3.1.3 Temporal Boundaries Temporal boundary selection was based on a reasonable expectation of the time over which the proposed Project would have effects on biophysical and human environment receptors.

Preliminary temporal boundaries of the proposed Project, which are contingent on permitting, include four primary phases:

Seasonal fluctuations in water parameters in Alice Arm are mainly the result of climate and freshwater runoffs. See Section 6.8.2.1 for a brief discussion.

6.8.3.2 Information Source and Methods The sources of information and methods employed to obtain detailed baseline information on marine biota are provided in Appendix 6.8-A.

6.8.3.3 Detailed Baseline for Marine Biota Baseline studies were designed to characterise marine biota resources in Alice Arm. Sampling was conducted in 2009 and 2010 to characterise current plankton, benthic infauna and epifauna communities; and marine fish, marine mammals, and their habitats in Alice Arm. A detailed description of marine biota resources is provided in Appendix 6.8-A.

6.8.3.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge 6.8.3.4.1 Nisga’a Nation The Nisga’a Nation has a right, protected constitutionally, to harvest a range of marine biota, including intertidal bivalves, aquatic plants, and fish throughout the Nass Area. The proposed Project lies within the Nass Area as delineated by the NFA. Nisga’a Nation

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-28

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES people have and continue to inhabit and use the area in and around the Nass River for thousands of years. Nisga’a Nation people fish, trap, and hunt a wide variety of marine and terrestrial species, and use and consume a range of aquatic and terrestrial plants.

The NFA defines Nisga’a Nation rights to harvest marine resources, including aquatic plants, in particular south of the proposed Project site. The following list provides overview of the rights and interests relevant to the Kitsault mine site:

 The Nisga’a Nation has the right to exclusive harvest of intertidal bivalves (including cockle, littleneck clam, butter clam, mussels, and manila clam) in the northern part of Observatory Inlet extending to the southern portion of Alice Arm, as per Appendix I of the NFA (approximately 15 km southwest of the proposed Project) (BC MARR 2000). According to the Nisga’a Nation annual fishing plans, the harvest is designated between 1 October and 31 March; and  Nisga’a Nation allocations for dungeness, tanner, and king crabs, halibut, prawns / shrimp, herring, and aquatics plants may be negotiated with the province and Canada at a future date.

6.8.3.4.2 Aboriginal Groups Of the five potentially affected Aboriginal groups, MFN has interests in marine resources adjacent to the proposed Project. KUFN and KFN also have marine interests in and around Prince Rupert approximately 175 km southwest of the proposed Project along Observatory Inlet. According to desk-based, publicly available sources, the Metlakatla (as part of the larger Coastal Tsimshian group) have and continue to use marine aquatic resources for food, social, ceremonial, and commercial purposes, and created surplus to use in times of shortage or for trade. Sources indicate locally harvested foods, such as fish, shellfish, herring eggs, oolichan, seal grease, berries, and seaweed, comprised over half of Tsimshian household’s diet. Oolichan and salmon had a particularly strong influence on Coastal Tsimshian economy, history, culture, and seasonal activities.

6.8.3.5 Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities See Section 6.8.2.5

6.8.3.6 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation No activities related to the proposed Project will be conducted in the marine waters or along the shoreline of Alice Arm. However, based on the information sources and regulatory requirements presented in previous sections, the potential effects of the proposed Project on the marine biota VC were identified. The Project Description and development plans were reviewed in the context of marine biota to determine the potential Project effects. Table 6.8.3-1 presents the potential effects of the proposed Project by component and phase.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-29

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Table 6.8.3-1: Summary of Potential Interaction between Project Direct and Indirect Effects on Other VCs and Marine Biota

Direct / Indirect Use Social Health

Project Effect Quality Change Change Heritage Economic Economic Hydrogeology Hydrogeology a’a Nation Land Use Use Land Nation a’a Surface Hydrology Noise and Vibration Groundwater Quality Quality Groundwater Marine Water Quality Marine Water Quality Freshwater Fisheries Environmental Health Air Quality and Climate Terrestrial Environment Aboriginal Groups Land Land Groups Aboriginal Wildlife and their Habitat their and Wildlife Nisg Freshwater and Sediment and Sediment Freshwater Marine biota NI NI NI NI o o NI - NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI Legend: Interaction definitions: o - interaction; - - key interaction; + - benefit; NI - no interaction

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-30

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.3.6.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects Water management activities associated with the operations and the post-closure phases identified in Table 6.8.1-1 to 6.8.1-3 were assessed to determined whether marine water quality may be affected, which, in turn, may affect marine biota.

No effects of the proposed Project on marine biota from effluent discharges to Lime Creek are expected to occur during mining operations as the assessment of activities related to the proposed Project will have negligible effects on marine water quality (see Section 6.8.2)

Results indicate that surplus contact water from the site will be suitable to discharge without treatment once mixed with the flows from Patsy and Lime Creeks (AMEC 2011). In addition, water management options will be evaluated to ensure that federal and provincial water quality guidelines are met before excess water is released into Lime Creek. Several decades after the closure of the mine, generation of ARD in site contact waters is predicted to start. Water treatment has been incorporated into the contingency aspect of the capital and operating costs of the Feasibility Study (AMEC 2011), in case water management strategies are not sufficient to meet water quality objectives during the operations or post- closure phases.

Water management activities associated with the proposed Project are projected to decrease baseline annual flow conditions in Lime Creek by 3% (Knight Piésold 2011). Given the relatively small contribution of Lime Creek discharge to Alice Arm (5%) compared to those of the Kitsault River (57%) and Illiance River (17%) and other smaller creeks (Krauel 1981), a 3% reduction in freshwater discharge at the mouth of Lime Creek is expected to have negligible effect on salinity and thus negligible effects on marine biota.

Cadmium and copper concentrations in Lime Creek water discharged to Alice Arm are predicted to occasionally exceed BC marine water quality guidelines during the proposed Project. The small mizing factors required to meet guidelines (<7) indicate that effects on water quality and marine biota are expected to be negligible (Table 6.8.3-2).

Table 3-2: Range of Mixing Needed for Lime Creek Water to Meet BC Water Quality Guidelines

Lime Creek Water Dilution Percentage of Project Estimated Factor Range Needed to Phase Duration When Project Phase Duration Metal Meet BC Marine Water the Mixing Factor is (years) Quality Guidelines Greater Than 1 Construction 2 Cadmium 0 – 4.3 75% Copper 0 - 2.4 20 % Operations 15 Cadmium 0 – 6.9 82% Copper 0 - 2.8 20% Closure 15 Cadmium 0 – 6.7 44% Copper 0 – 1.9 4%

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-31

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

Lime Creek Water Dilution Percentage of Project Estimated Factor Range Needed to Phase Duration When Project Phase Duration Metal Meet BC Marine Water the Mixing Factor is (years) Quality Guidelines Greater Than 1 Post-Closure 34 Cadmium 0 – 6.2 67% Copper 0 – 2.1 20% Note: % - percent

Table 6.8.3-3 summarises potential indirect effects of the proposed Project on marine biota and their likelihood of occurrence.

Table 6.8.3-2: Potential Indirect Project Effects on Marine Biota

Direct Project Effect Project Potential Indirect Carry Forward Rationale (Adverse or Positive) Phase Project Effect (Yes / No) Contact water will be O Degraded water quality No Proposed Project discharged to Lime may cause localised design measures in Creek, potentially changes in near-shore place to ensure water affecting freshwater benthic community, quality will meet quality in the creek and thereby affecting guidelines. marine water quality at foraging behaviour of the mouth. fish. Potential changes in O Changes in freshwater No Projected changes in Lime Creek baseline discharge from Lime Lime Creek discharge to marine Creek may cause freshwater discharge near-shore waters due localised changes in are low and to water management marine water salinity, associated changes in Project activities. which may affect near- near-shore water shore benthic salinity are negligible. community, thereby affecting foraging behaviour of fish. Potential changes in PC Degraded water quality No Proposed Project Lime Creek freshwater may cause localised design measures in quality and changes in near-shore place to ensure water subsequently marine benthic community, quality will meet water quality due to the thereby affecting guidelines discharge of contact foraging behaviour of water from pit lake into fish. the creek. Project phase: C - construction; D/C - decommissioning and closure; O - operations; PC - post-closure

The proposed Project effects on marine biota are predicted to be negligible; therefore, interactions with environmental, social and economic, heritage, health, and Nisga’a Nation and Aboriginal land use VCs are not considered further.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-32

KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARINE AQUATIC RESOURCES

6.8.3.7 Cumulative Effects Assessment There are no residual effects associated with the marine water quality VC; therefore, a CEA has not been conducted for this VC.

6.8.3.8 Conclusion The proposed Project will not have any direct effects on marine VCs. The baseline annual discharge of freshwater from Lime Creek into Alice Arm is expected to be reduced by 3%. Given the relatively small contribution of Lime Creek discharge to Alice Arm (5%) compared to those of the Kitsault River (57%) and Illiance River (17%) and other smaller creeks (Krauel 1981), a 3% reduction in freshwater discharge at the mouth of Lime Creek is expected to have negligible effect on salinity and thus negligible effects on marine biota.

Water concentrations in Lime Creek are predicted to occasionally exceed BC marine water quality guidelines during the proposed Project. However, given the small mixing factors needed to meet the guidelines, once this water is discharged into Alice Arm, changes to marine water quality and effects on marine biota are expected to be immeasurable and negligible.

No residual or cumulative effects to water quality or marine biota are anticipated for the proposed Project.

Version 1.0 VE51988 – Section 6.8 April 2012 Page 6.8-33