Subject: EEM question regarding an exemption from the fish survey
From: "Ferone,Jenny [Edm]" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:13:34 -0700

Hi Bob,

During our site visit you asked for clarification as to whether it would be
acceptable to conduct the EEM biological study in the top 1/3 of Twin Lakes
Creek, upstream of the ore outcrop which represents a potentially
confounding factor.  Since there are no fish in Twin Lakes Creek, you asked
whether the mine would be exempt from conducting a fish survey.  

As we indicated to you during our site visit, generally, if mines discharge
into receiving environments naturally without fish (as in the case of
Nanisivik), mines should continue downstream until fish are found and
conduct the fish survey at this point to determine whether or not there are
effects.  In the case of Nanisivik, this would likely mean moving downstream
into the marine environment.  We understand that you believe a study in the
marine environment would be confounded by upstream metal loading at the ore
outcrop in Twin Lakes Creek.  We have discussed the Nanisivik site with the
EEM National Office and they have indicated that within the MMER EEM
program, the presence of confounding factors is not a basis for exemption
from the fish survey.       

For the metal mining EEM program, successive EEM studies should answer the
following 4 tiered questions: 1) is there an effect; 2) is the effect mine
related, 3) are the magnitude and geographical extent of the effect known
and 4) is the mine related cause of the effect known (please see Figure 1-1
of the Metal Mining Guidance document).  Therefore the first EEM study at
Nanisivik need only address whether or not effects are found.   In order to
confirm whether or not any effects found are related to the mine effluent
(to address the next tiered question), a second EEM study would be required.
At this second tier, it is advised that mines design the study around any
confounding factors as best as possible, which in some cases may mean using
alternative methods (e.g. mesocosms, caged bivalves).  If, as indicated
during our site visit, Nanisivik plans to become a recognized closed mine
and therefore the first EEM study will be the last EEM study, the aim of
this study should be to evaluate the first question: is there an effect?

Please note, should the fish survey be conducted in the marine environment,
this does not necessarily restrict the benthic survey to be conducted in the
marine environment.  In the Study Design, the mine should propose the
location for the benthic survey that it sees as most appropriate to evaluate
whether or not there are effects.  Upon submission, the Study Design will be
reviewed by the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP).

As well, should the marine environment represent the most likely environment
for both the fish and benthic surveys, we recommend that marine sublethal
tests be done for the Sublethal Toxicity Testing requirement of EEM.  If the
marine environment  is proposed for the fish survey and the creek for the
benthic survey, then the mine may conduct either freshwater or the marine
Sublethal Toxicity Tests. 

Please feel free to contact me if you would like any further background on
the program.

Jenny

_________________________________________________
Jenny Marie Ferone, M.Sc.
Regional Environmental Effects Monitoring Coordinator

Environment Canada
Prairie and Northern Region
Room 200, 4999 98th Ave. 
Edmonton, AB,  T6B 2X3
Phone: (780) 951-8754
Fax: (780) 495-2758