DOCSLIB.ORG

Nechako Reservoir Impacts of Timber Salvage on Fish and Fish Habitat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nechako Reservoir Impacts of Timber Salvage on Fish and Fish Habitat NECHAKO RESERVOIR IMPACTS OF TIMBER SALVAGE ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT 1997 STUDIES Prepared for: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, SKEENA REGION BC Environment PO Box 5000 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Prepared by: M. B. Winsby, G.C.Taylor and D.R. Munday HATFIELD CONSULTANTS LTD. Suite 201 - 1571 Bellevue Avenue West Vancouver, BC V7V 1A6 Tel: (604) 926.3261 Fax: (604) 926.5389 Email: [email protected] MARCH 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODS ................................................................................... 3 2.1 STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Overview of Nechako Reservoir ..................................................................... 3 2.1.2 General Features of Ootsa Lake .................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Fish Sample Sites ........................................................................................... 6 2.1.3.1 Ootsa Lake.....................................................................................7 2.1.3.2 Tahtsa Reach...............................................................................11 2.1.3.3 Eutsuk Lake.................................................................................11 2.2 STUDY METHODS .....................................................................................................11 2.2.1 Fish Capture .................................................................................................12 2.2.1.1 Gillnet Capture ............................................................................12 2.2.1.2 Minnow Trapping ........................................................................14 2.2.1.3 Electrofishing ..............................................................................14 2.2.1.4 Biological Measurements ............................................................14 2.2.2 Underwater Noise Measurement .................................................................. 14 2.2.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation .................................................................. 15 3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 EARLY SUMMER FISH CAPTURE PROGRAM.......................................................... 17 3.2 LATE SUMMER FISH CAPTURE PROGRAM ............................................................ 17 3.2.1 Andrews Bay................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Wells Creek bay ............................................................................................ 21 3.2.3 Whiting Creek bay ......................................................................................... 24 3.3 UNDERWATER NOISE ..............................................................................................26 4.0 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................... 30 4.1 TIMBER REMOVAL OPERATIONS DURING 1997 .................................................... 30 4.2 SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF TIMBER REMOVAL .................................................... 30 4.2.1 Species Composition ....................................................................................30 BCE710:04/08/2005 i 4.2.2 Abundance .................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2.1 Rainbow Trout.............................................................................. 32 4.2.2.2 Kokanee....................................................................................... 32 4.2.2.3 Mountain Whitefish...................................................................... 33 4.2.2.4 Northern Squawfish..................................................................... 33 4.3 EFFECTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE........................................................................ 34 4.3.1 Sound Characteristics of Timber Harvesting Equipment............................... 34 4.3.2 Sound Attenuation Rates............................................................................... 36 4.3.3 Implications of Underwater Sound from Timber Harvesting Activities on Fish................................................................................................................ 36 4.4 DATA LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................ 37 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 39 5.1 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................39 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................40 5.2.1 Fish Protection Measures ............................................................................. 40 5.2.1.1 Tentative Timing Windows ..........................................................41 5.2.1.2 Distances/Locations ....................................................................41 5.2.2 Future Studies ..............................................................................................41 5.2.2.1 Lake Sampling ............................................................................41 5.2.2.2 Stream Reconnaissance Surveys ...............................................42 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 43 APPENDICES BCE710:04/08/2005 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1 Glossary of common and scientific names of species identified during current or previous investigations........................................................................ 13 Table 3.1 Species composition of gillnet catches at sites in Andrews Bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 18 Table 3.2 Catch per unit effort of gillnet catches at sites in Andrews Bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 18 Table 3.3 Species proportions and Shannon-Weiner Function for communities sampled at Wells Creek Bay, Whiting Creek Bay, and Andrews Bay, August/September 1997.............................................................................. 20 Table 3.4 Species composition of gillnet catches at sites in Wells Creek bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 22 Table 3.5 Catch per unit effort of gillnet catches at sites in Wells Creek bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 22 Table 3.6 Species composition of gillnet catches at sites in Whiting Creek Bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 25 Table 3.7 Catch per unit effort of gillnet catches at sites in Whiting Creek Bay, August/September 1997...................................................................................... 25 Table 3.8 Floating gillnet catch per unit effort (no. of fish/h) - all species, Nechako Reservoir August/September 1997 ..................................................................... 26 Table 3.9 Results of underwater sound measurements near timber harvesting operations............................................................................................................ 27 Table 4.1 Catch per unit effort for all species captured in Ootsa Lake floating gillnets, fall 1996 and late summer 1997............................................................. 32 BCE710:04/08/2005 iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1 Nechako Reservoir fish and fish habitat study area .............................................. 4 Figure 2.2 Ootsa Lake pre- and post-impoundment area....................................................... 5 Figure 2.3 Sample site locations for fisheries evaluation, Ootsa Lake, early and late summer 1997 ........................................................................................................ 7 Figure 2.4 Sample site locations for fisheries evaluation, Tahtsa Reach, early and late summer 1997.................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.5 Sampling site locations for fisheries evaluation, Eutsuk Lake, early and late summer 1997.................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3.1 Catch per unit effort for floating gillnets in Andrews inner bay, 1996
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrothermal Characteristics of the Nechako Reservoir
    Hydrothermal Characteristics of the Nechako Reservoir Phase 2 Report 2006/07 Gregory A. Lawrence, Ph.D., P.Eng. 1 Roger Pieters, Ph.D. 1,2 Tel: (604) 822 5371 Tel: (604) 822 4297 [email protected] [email protected] Bernard Laval, Ph.D., P.Eng. 1 Yasmin Nassar1 Tel: (604) 822 2204 Tel: (604) 827 5367 [email protected] [email protected] Yehya Imam1 Samuel Li, Ph.D. 1 Tel: (604) 822 4853 Tel: (250) 807 8145 [email protected] [email protected] 1Department of Civil Engineering 2 Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4 Prepared for Nechako Enhancement Society c/o Suite 850-899 West Hasting Street Vancouver B.C. V6C 2W2 August 23, 2007 Executive Summary The Nechako Enhancement Society (NES), a joint partnership of Alcan Inc. and the Province of British Columbia, is considering building a Cold Water Release Facility (CWRF) at Kenney Dam on the Nechako Reservoir. The CWRF would draw cold deep water from the reservoir to reduce the temperature of the Nechako River for fish migration. The NES has requested an assessment of the ability of the CWRF to deliver up to 170 m3/s of 10 ºC water between July 20 and August 20 (a total of 0.47 km3). We have examined the physical limnology of the two basins adjacent to Kenney Dam (Knewstubb and Natalkuz lakes). In particular, we have: • Collected temperature profiles in the summer of 2005, 2006 and 2007; these were compared with data from 1990 (Limnotek) and 1994 (Triton).
    [Show full text]
  • 20. Aboriginal Rights and Interests Effects
    20. ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS AND RELATED INTERESTS 20.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter assesses potential adverse effects on Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests which may arise from the Project during construction, operations, decommissioning/reclamation, and post-closure. Underground mining activities have the potential to adversely affect Aboriginal and Treaty rights by interfering with Aboriginal groups’ ability to engage in practices, customs, and traditions that are integral to their distinctive cultures, and/or by interfering with the exercise of rights expressly recognized in a treaty. Interference with Aboriginal and Treaty rights is generally indirect, resulting from changes to environmental conditions that are necessary for the continued exercise of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The assessment is based on information derived from the Proponent’s engagement with potentially- affected Aboriginal groups, environmental assessments carried out elsewhere in the Application/EIS, and the review of secondary data. Wherever possible, the assessment addresses potential effects on Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests as understood from the perspective of the Aboriginal groups in question. Baseline reports informing this assessment are appended to the Application/EIS and include: Ethnographic Overview and Traditional Knowledge and Use Desk-Based Research Report (Appendix 17-A) and Saulteau First Nations Knowledge and Use Study for HD Mining Murray River Coal Project (Appendix 17-B). 20.2 REGULATORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK The Crown has a legal duty to consult with and, where appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it contemplates a conduct that might adversely impact the potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty right. The Crown delegated procedural aspects of this duty, with respect to the Project, to the Proponent through the Section 11 Order and EIS Guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Nechako Watershed Council Report: Assessment of Potential Flow Regimes for the Nechako Watershed
    NECHAKO WATERSHED COUNCIL REPORT: ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FLOW REGIMES FOR THE NECHAKO WATERSHED Prepared by: 4Thought Solutions Inc. Suite 334 125A – 1030 Denman Street Vancouver, BC V6G 2M6 Prepared for: Nechako Enhancement Society & Nechako Watershed Council Contact person: Kristann Boudreau Senior Consultant, 4Thought Solutions Inc. Telephone: (604) 689-8443 Fax: 1-866-873-4045 E-mail: [email protected] Disclaimer: This internal discussion paper was commissioned to assist the Nechako Watershed Council with the process of developing consensus recommendations on flow regimes for the Nechako Watershed downstream of the Kenney Dam, assuming that a Cold Water Release Facility is constructed at Kenney Dam. Any views or opinions expressed in this draft are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the members of the Nechako Watershed Council (NWC) or the Nechako Enhancement Society (NES), until the final draft has been signed off by all NWC. Date: March 18, 2005 [FINAL] Assessment of Potential Flow Regimes for the Nechako Watershed March 18, 2005 Executive Summary This report summarizes the Nechako Watershed Council’s (NWC) work, analyses, and consensus-based recommendations completed to date related to proposed flow regimes for the Nechako Watershed downstream of Kenney Dam if a cold water release facility is constructed at the dam. The facility’s construction is currently contingent on: 1) sufficient funds being contributed to the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund (NEEF) and, 2) the decision of the NEEF Management Committee to use the funds for the construction of a cold- water release facility (CWRF) at Kenney Dam being implemented. This report is a “working” or “living” document, recognizing that the NWC is still in the midst of a consensus-based decision-making process to develop recommendations on a preferred post-CWRF flow regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau
    LATE PREHISTORIC CULTURAL HORIZONS ON THE CANADIAN PLATEAU Department of Archaeology Thomas H. Richards Simon Fraser University Michael K. Rousseau Publication Number 16 1987 Archaeology Press Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Roy L. Carlson (Chairman) Knut R. Fladmark Brian Hayden Philip M. Hobler Jack D. Nance Erie Nelson All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ISBN 0-86491-077-0 PRINTED IN CANADA The Department of Archaeology publishes papers and monographs which relate to its teaching and research interests. Communications concerning publications should be directed to the Chairman of the Publications Committee. © Copyright 1987 Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University Late Prehistoric Cultural Horizons on the Canadian Plateau by Thomas H. Richards and Michael K. Rousseau Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University Publication Number 16 1987 Burnaby, British Columbia We respectfully dedicate this volume to the memory of CHARLES E. BORDEN (1905-1978) the father of British Columbia archaeology. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................vii List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................iv
    [Show full text]
  • Fish 2002 Tec Doc Draft3
    BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION - 2002 Environmental Indicator: Fish in British Columbia Primary Indicator: Conservation status of Steelhead Trout stocks rated as healthy, of conservation concern, and of extreme conservation concern. Selection of the Indicator: The conservation status of Steelhead Trout stocks is a state or condition indicator. It provides a direct measure of the condition of British Columbia’s Steelhead stocks. Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are highly valued by recreational anglers and play a locally important role in First Nations ceremonial, social and food fisheries. Because Steelhead Trout use both freshwater and marine ecosystems at different periods in their life cycle, it is difficult to separate effects of freshwater and marine habitat quality and freshwater and marine harvest mortality. Recent delcines, however, in southern stocks have been attributed to environmental change, rather than over-fishing because many of these stocks are not significantly harvested by sport or commercial fisheries. With respect to conseration risk, if a stock is over fished, it is designated as being of ‘conservation concern’. The term ‘extreme conservation concern’ is applied to stock if there is a probablity that the stock could be extirpated. Data and Sources: Table 1. Conservation Ratings of Steelhead Stock in British Columbia, 2000 Steelhead Stock Extreme Conservation Conservation Healthy Total (Conservation Unit Name) Concern Concern Bella Coola–Rivers Inlet 1 32 33 Boundary Bay 4 4 Burrard
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling Spatial and Temporal Variability of Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change in the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada
    HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES Hydrol. Process. (2012) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9283 Modelling spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Fraser River basin, British Columbia, Canada Rajesh R. Shrestha,* Markus A. Schnorbus, Arelia T. Werner and Anne J. Berland Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University House 1, PO Box 3060 Stn CSC, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8W 3R4 Abstract: This paper presents a modelling study on the spatial and temporal variability of climate-induced hydrologic changes in the Fraser River basin, British Columbia, Canada. This large basin presents a unique modelling case due to its physiographic heterogeneity and the potentially large implications of changes to its hydrologic regime. The macro-scale Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model was employed to simulate 30-year baseline (1970s) and future (2050s) hydrologic regimes based on climate forcings derived from eight global climate models (GCMs) runs under three emissions scenarios (B1, A1B and A2). Bias Corrected Spatial Disaggregation was used to statistically downscale GCM outputs to the resolution of the VIC model (1/16). The modelled future scenarios for the 11 sub-basins and three regions (eastern mountains, central plateau and coastal mountains) of the FRB exhibit spatially varied responses, such as, shifts from snow-dominant to hybrid regime in the eastern and coastal mountains and hybrid to rain-dominant regime in the central plateau region. The analysis of temporal changes illustrated considerable uncertainties in the projections obtained from an ensemble of GCMs and emission scenarios. However, direction of changes obtained from the GCM ensembles and emissions scenarios are consistent amongst one another.
    [Show full text]
  • Application Review Aboriginal Consultation Report
    Prepared for: KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Application Review Aboriginal Consultation Report December 2016 The business of sustainability AuRico Metals Inc. KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Application Review Aboriginal Consultation Report December 2016 Project #0196303-0122-0004 Citation: ERM. 2016. Kemess Underground Project: Application Review Aboriginal Consultation Report. Prepared for AuRico Metals Inc. by ERM Consultants Canada Ltd.: Vancouver, British Columbia. ERM ERM Building, 15th Floor 1111 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2J3 T: (604) 689-9460 F: (604) 687-4277 ERM prepared this report for the sole and exclusive benefit of, and use by, AuRico Metals Inc. Notwithstanding delivery of this report by ERM or AuRico Metals Inc. to any third party, any copy of this report provided to a third party is provided for informational purposes only, without the right to rely upon the report. KEMESS UNDERGROUND PROJECT Application Review Aboriginal Consultation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii List of Appendices...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • For Fraser River Chinook Salmon Conservation) Pour Le Saumon Quinnat Du Fraser
    C S A S S C C S Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique Research Document 2002/085 Document de recherche 2002/085 Not to be cited without Ne pas citer sans permission of the authors * autorisation des auteurs * A discussion paper on possible new Document de travail sur les nouveaux stock groupings (Conservation Units) agrégats possibles de stocks (unités de for Fraser River chinook salmon conservation) pour le saumon quinnat du Fraser J. R. Candy1, J. R. Irvine1, C. K. Parken1, S. L. Lemke2, R. E. Bailey2, M. Wetklo1 and K. Jonsen1 1 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Biological Station Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6N7 2Fisheries and Oceans Canada B.C. Interior, Resource Management 1278 Dalhousie Drive, Kamloops, B.C. V2B 6G3 * This series documents the scientific basis for the * La présente série documente les bases scientifiques evaluation of fisheries resources in Canada. As such, des évaluations des ressources halieutiques du Canada. it addresses the issues of the day in the time frames Elle traite des problèmes courants selon les échéanciers required and the documents it contains are not dictés. Les documents qu’elle contient ne doivent pas intended as definitive statements on the subjects être considérés comme des énoncés définitifs sur les addressed but rather as progress reports on ongoing sujets traités, mais plutôt comme des rapports d’étape investigations. sur les études en cours. Research documents are produced in the official Les documents de recherche sont publiés dans la language in which they are provided to the langue officielle utilisée dans le manuscrit envoyé au Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1976
    INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC SALMON F I S H E R I E S C o-M M I S S I O N APPOINTED UNDER A CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND EXTENSION OF THE SOCKEYE AND PINK SALMON FISHERIES IN THE FRASER RIVER SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT 1976 COMMISSIONERS DONALD R. JOHNSON W.R. HOURSTON WILLIAM G. SALETIC RICHARD NELSON DONALD W. MOOS RODERICK HAIG-BROWN NEW WESTMINSTER CANADA 1977 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION MEMBERS AND PERIOD OF SERVICE SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE COMMISSION IN 1937 CANADA UNITED STATES William A. Found ........................... 1937-1939 Edward W. Allen ............................ 1937-1951 1957-1957 A. L. Hager ..................................... 1937-1948 B. M. Brennan ................................ 1937-1942 Senator Thomas Reid .................... 1937-1967 Charles E. Jackson ........................ 1937-1946 A. J. Whitmore ............................... 1939-1966 1968-1969 Fred J. Foster ................................. 1943-1947 Olof Hanson ................................... 1948-1952 Milo Moore .................................... 1946-1949 1957-1961 H. R. MacMillan, C.B.E., D.Sc .... 1952-1956 Albert M. Day ................................. 1947-1954 F. D. Mathers ................................. 1956-1960 Alvin Anderson ............................... 1949-1950 W.R. Hourston .............................. 1960- Robert J. Schoettler ...................... 1951-1957 Richard Nelson .............................. 1966-1976 Elton B. Jones ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus Northern Mountain population Central Mountain population Southern Mountain population in Canada Northern Mountain population - SPECIAL CONCERN Central Mountain population - ENDANGERED Southern Mountain population - ENDANGERED 2014 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxii + 113 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 98 pp. (Species at Risk Status Reports) Thomas, D.C., and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-98 pp. Kelsall, J.P. 1984. COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 103 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Deborah Cichowski for writing the status report on Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This status report was overseen and edited by Justina Ray, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee.
    [Show full text]
  • Charted Lakes List
    LAKE LIST United States and Canada Bull Shoals, Marion (AR), HD Powell, Coconino (AZ), HD Gull, Mono Baxter (AR), Taney (MO), Garfield (UT), Kane (UT), San H. V. Eastman, Madera Ozark (MO) Juan (UT) Harry L. Englebright, Yuba, Chanute, Sharp Saguaro, Maricopa HD Nevada Chicot, Chicot HD Soldier Annex, Coconino Havasu, Mohave (AZ), La Paz HD UNITED STATES Coronado, Saline St. Clair, Pinal (AZ), San Bernardino (CA) Cortez, Garland Sunrise, Apache Hell Hole Reservoir, Placer Cox Creek, Grant Theodore Roosevelt, Gila HD Henshaw, San Diego HD ALABAMA Crown, Izard Topock Marsh, Mohave Hensley, Madera Dardanelle, Pope HD Upper Mary, Coconino Huntington, Fresno De Gray, Clark HD Icehouse Reservior, El Dorado Bankhead, Tuscaloosa HD Indian Creek Reservoir, Barbour County, Barbour De Queen, Sevier CALIFORNIA Alpine Big Creek, Mobile HD DeSoto, Garland Diamond, Izard Indian Valley Reservoir, Lake Catoma, Cullman Isabella, Kern HD Cedar Creek, Franklin Erling, Lafayette Almaden Reservoir, Santa Jackson Meadows Reservoir, Clay County, Clay Fayetteville, Washington Clara Sierra, Nevada Demopolis, Marengo HD Gillham, Howard Almanor, Plumas HD Jenkinson, El Dorado Gantt, Covington HD Greers Ferry, Cleburne HD Amador, Amador HD Greeson, Pike HD Jennings, San Diego Guntersville, Marshall HD Antelope, Plumas Hamilton, Garland HD Kaweah, Tulare HD H. Neely Henry, Calhoun, St. HD Arrowhead, Crow Wing HD Lake of the Pines, Nevada Clair, Etowah Hinkle, Scott Barrett, San Diego Lewiston, Trinity Holt Reservoir, Tuscaloosa HD Maumelle, Pulaski HD Bear Reservoir,
    [Show full text]
  • June 29, 2020 Joseph Mackenzie Chair
    June 29, 2020 Joseph Mackenzie Chair - WLWB Wekeezhii Land and Water Board #1-4905 48th Street Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S3 Dear Mr. Mackenzie, Re: Diavik Diamond Mine (2012) Inc. (DDMI) Type A Water Licence Amendment Application – W2015L2-0001 PK to Mine Workings IR - Panel Member Candidates Water Quality Monitoring Independent Review Panel Request for Comment On June 8, 2020, the Wek’èezhìi Land and Water Board (WLWB) requested recommendations from Parties regarding additional Panel member candidates for consideration as part of the Water Quality Monitoring Independent Review Panel (the Panel) associated with Diavik Diamond Mines (2012) Inc.’s (DDMI) application to amend Water Licence W2015L2-0001 to allow for the deposit of Processed Kimberlite (PK) into the Mine Workings. The WLWB has requested the following: Information Request #1 The Board has requests recommendations from Parties on additional Panel member candidates and requests the following information on or before Monday, June 29, 2020: 1. Provide the names of Panel member candidates and the following information: a. Indicate that the candidate has expertise in hydrodynamic water quality modelling, and/or extra-fine processed kimberlite or clay hydrodynamics; b. Provide copies of the candidate’s resumes; c. Disclose if the candidate has any conflicts of interest to declare; and d. Confirm that the candidate has expressed interest in sitting on the Panel. 1 ENR’s Response ENR has contacted and been given confirmation that the following candidates are interested in sitting on the Panel. Additionally, all three have confirmed that they would have no conflicts of interest with participation on the Panel. The candidates’ resumes are attached to the end of this letter.
    [Show full text]