Kiggavik Uranium Mine ProjectPresentation to the

Nunavut Impact Review Board

Final Hearing

Baker Lake, NU

March 2-14, 2015

1

Overview

1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – Fisheries Protection Program

• Mandate, Legislation and Policy

2. Technical Comments and Recommendations

3. Conclusions

4. Questions and Comments

2

DFO’s Fisheries Protection Program - Mandate

The mandate of the Fisheries Protection Program is to maintain the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries.

3

J. Stewart DFO

Fisheries Protection Program – Legislation• Fisheries Act

• Section 35 • Prohibits serious harm to fish

• Allows for authorization of impacts with conditions

• Sections 20, 21• Requirement for sufficient water, fish passage

• Species at Risk Act• Sections 32, 33, 58

• Prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of listed species, destruction of residence, critical habitat

• Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Article 12)

4

Fisheries Protection Program – Policy

• Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013)

• Guidance on implementing the fisheries protection provisions of Fisheries Act

5

• Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (2013)

• Guidance on measures to offset serious harm to fish

Technical Comments and Recommendations

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s comments are focused on the following areas:

• Aquatic Environment• Blasting, water crossings, water withdrawals

• Conceptual Fisheries Offsetting Plan• Management and Monitoring Plans

• Fish habitat and fish passage• Reflooding Andrew Lake Pit

6

7

Arctic GraylingAREVA FEIS Appendix 2E

P Cott DFO

Andrew Lake and PitPoints to streams with spawning habitat

Flow of diverted water

Aquatic Environment - Blasting

Issue: There is inadequate information about the exclusion net to be used to exclude fish from blasting areas near Andrew Lake Pit.

Recommendations (#1, 2):• Ensure exclusion nets are sized appropriately.• Ensure exclusion nets do not obstruct fish

passage (e.g., spawning Arctic Grayling).

8

249

AREVA FEIS Appendix 2M

Issue: The number and type of water crossings described by AREVA are inconsistent.

Recommendations (#3, 5):• Ensure water crossings have minimal infilling and

avoid obstructing fish passage.• Provide a final list all water crossings, including

design, and identifying which affect fish-frequented watercourses, for assessment before construction.

10

Aquatic Environment – Water Crossings

2411

Lake TroutBlack areas indicate spawning habitat AREVA FEIS Appendix 5P

MUSHROOM LAKE (32 ha)

SIAMESE LAKE

(2792 ha)

DFO

Aquatic Environment – Water Withdrawals

Issue: Inadequate information to determine effects of water withdrawal on Lake Trout.

Recommendations (#6):• Evaluate effects of 1.6—11% loss of spawning

habitat on Lake Trout populations in Siamese and Mushroom Lakes, consider other options for water withdrawal.

12

Conceptual Fisheries Offsetting Plan

Issue: Inadequate information to determine residual serious to fish that will require offsetting.

Recommendations (#7-8):• Consider all aspects of the Project that may

cause serious harm to fish, including amount of habitat affected, mitigation measures, and the residual serious harm to fish that remains.

13

Management and Monitoring Plans – Monitoring Fish Habitat and Fish PassageIssue: the frequency of monitoring for water crossings is inadequate to confirm no barriers to fish passage and crossing stability.

Recommendations (#9, 10):• Revise plans to monitor water crossing stability

during spring freshet daily, to identify need to mitigate ice jamming.

• Revise plans to inspect bridges and culverts at least once annually for the life of the Project, at low flow.

14

Management and Monitoring Plans – Monitoring Fish Habitat and Fish Passage

Issue: Water withdrawal may impact fish habitat and fish passage during periods of low water flow.

Recommendations (#11):• Monitor water levels in Mushroom and Siamese

lakes to ensure no impacts to fish passage or fish habitat as a consequence of water withdrawal, particularly during years of low precipitation.

15

Management and Monitoring Plans – Reflooding of Andrew Lake Pit

Issue: Inadequate information on plans for Andrew Lake Pit to ensure suitable habitat for fish after reflooding.

Recommendations (#13):• To support closure goals, ensure that Andrew Lake Pit

contains, or provides access to, suitable fish habitat for all life stages (including overwintering) when reflooded.

• Develop plans to address the potential need for providing suitable habitat for fish in Andrew Lake Pit.

16

AREVA FEIS Volume 2

Conclusion

Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work with the Proponent and stakeholders, including potentially impacted communities, to ensure that:

o Appropriate mitigation and monitoring programs are implemented;o Offsetting Plan is adequate; o Other inconsistencies and inadequacies of information

are addressed.

17

2418

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Thank You Merci

?ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᐃᑦ Questions?