Hi Rick - Here's my response to the main summary memo, and includes comments on several of the additional memos. 

1.  The intent behind the initial comment was to determine the rationale for rejecting the other options.  The matrix in the NWB submission leads one to the conclusion that the causeway option is not necessarily the best option from an environmental view, specifically fish habitat.

However, DFO can accept Tahera's preferred approach to use the causeway and considers the issue to be resolved. 

2. DFO accepts the option that Tahera has preferred, i.e. redesigning the causeway and water intake, such that the intake pipe will extend from the causeway into sufficiently deep water.  DFO expects that the drawings will be updated and the NNLP adjusted to reflect any reductions in the length or size of the causeway associated with the extension of the intake pipe from the end of the causeway to sufficiently deep water. 

   
Therefore, DFO considers the issue resolved upon receipt of the revised drawings and re-calculation of the NNLP. 

3. Our concern is the possibility that the causeway will accumulate fines adjacent to the structure, resulting in changes to the substrate (ie gravel/cobble substrate becoming silty substrate) over time.  However, given the oligotrophic nature and the low sediment loads in Carat Lake, DFO feels this can be addressed through monitoring of the adjacent substrate, along with a feasible contingency plan that can be implemented should it be justified.  The monitoring station should be located in the area most likely to be affected and should be reported on annually at least for the first couple years.  Although the contingency measures may include the use of culverts, the ultimate goal will be to address the change in substrate. 

Therefore, DFO considers this issue to be resolved with the implementation of the monitoring components and commitment to implement a feasible contingency.

4. Based on the updated blasting analysis, it was determined that the need for a Section 32 will not be necessary.  Please ensure work crews are adequately advised and follow the plan. 

Therefore, DFO now considers the issue to be resolved. 

5. The fish salvage program was received and meets our needs. 

Provided the relocation of fish meets the needs of the local community, DFO will consider this issue to be resolved. 

6. DFO accepts Tahera's response, but suggests that early and often monitoring during initial operation of the channel be conducted to ensure permafrost issues are dealt with immediately. 

Therefore, DFO considers this issue to be resolved.

7.  DFO accepts the responses provided, but would like the revised detailed design drawings to include a revised representative longitudinal view (to show the pool/riffle sequences), as well as typical pool and riffle construction drawings. 

Therefore, upon receipt of the revised drawings, DFO will consider this issue to be resolved.

8. Based on the NWB submission, it didn't appear that water flows in Stream C1 would be maintained early on and seemed to be contradictory to our discussions.  However, the summary provided clarifies that water will be maintained as much as possible and outlines how this will occur. 

The monitoring component associated with the mouth of Stream C1 was received and is acceptable provided the temperature is compared to background levels and the monitoring station for flows is located upstream of the impact of the berm.  

Therefore, DFO will consider these issues resolved. 

9. DFO accepts Tahera's response and expects that water quality issues associated with the pit will be further refined during the operation to determine the ultimate closure plans.  

10. DFO accepts Tahera's response and considers the issue to be resolved.

11. DFO accepts the approach to ensure erosion associated with the increased flows will be mitigated through the review of the site by a qualified hydrologist.  The mitigation plan should be developed to ensure fish habitat is maintained or improved and should be implemented prior to the discharge of water from Long Lake/PKCA and not before the end of the open water season.  It is important to ensure that the channel is monitored frequently to ensure early detection of any erosion concerns, particularly early in the operation.   

Therefore, provided the mitigation plan ensures fish habitat in Stream C3 is maintained or improved, the need for a performance bonding on Stream C3 will not be necessary and DFO considers the issue resolved. 

12 With respect to the NNLP, several components will require revision, based on our discussion.  DFO accepts the conceptual NNLP, with the understanding that the NWB process may result in some additional revisions or changes that may need to be reflected in the NNLP.  Furthermore, the collection of baseline fisheries data, the development of an adequate monitoring plan and the submission of detailed design drawings for the enhancements will be need to be submitted to DFO for review and approval, prior to implementation.  

13.  Items to be considered in the cost break down for the performance bond includes: labour, project supervision and management costs, equipment, materials, report preparation and printing, monitoring, maintenance, contingencies.  Attached is an excel sheet as an example. 

Any questions, please call, 

Derrick Moggy
Habitat Management Biologist/Biologiste de gestion de l'habitat
phone/tél: (867) 979-8011 fax/ télécopieur: (867) 979-8039
e-mail: moggyd@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
                                                      
Fisheries & Oceans Canada / Pêches et Océans Canada
Eastern Arctic Area/ Secteur de l'Arctique de l'est
P.O.Box 358/ Boîte postale 358
Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0
website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/index_e.asp
 
Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Pattenden [mailto:rpattenden@mainstreamaquatics.ca]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 2:50 PM
To: Derrick Moggy
Cc: Greg Missal; Tahera Corporation
Subject: Summary of DFO Issues - Jericho

Derrick:

I have attached a memo that presents the issues listed in your letter
dated 4 November 2004, Tahera's response to those issues based on our
discussions on 10 and 12 November, and a list of tasks that remain.
Please consider this a  draft document. We welcome your comments
regarding omissions or differences in interpretation. Your comments are
welcome.

Regards,   

Rick Pattenden, M. SC., P. Biol.
Principal, Senior Biologist

Mainstream Aquatics Ltd.
6956 Roper Road
Edmonton, Alberta
T6B 3H9

P: 780-440-1334
F: 780-440-1252
C: 780-919-2317
Email: rpattenden@mainstreamaquatics.ca 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 10/29/2004