kitimat modernization project environmental effects monitoring

Kitimat Modernization Project Sulphur Dioxide Environmental Effects

Monitoring Program

Program Plan for 2013 to 2018

Prepared for:

Rio Tinto Alcan 1 Smeltersite Road, P.O. Box 1800, Kitimat, B.C., V8C 2H2 Canada

Prepared by:

ESSA Technologies Ltd. Suite 600 – 2695 Granville St.

Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6H 3H4

Authored by:

Dr. Julian Aherne, Trent University, Peterborough ON Ms. Anna Henolson, Trinity Consultants, Kent WA

Dr. John Laurence, Portland OR Mr. David Marmorek, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver BC Ms. Carol Murray, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver BC Mr. Greg Paoli, Risk Sciences International Inc., Ottawa ON

Mr. Christopher J. Perrin, Limnotek, Vancouver BC Dr. Shaun Watmough, Trent University, Peterborough ON

October 7, 2014

With greatly appreciated contributions from:

Ms. Diana Abraham, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Peterborough ON Ms. Beth Beaudry Trinity Consultants, Kent WA

Mr. Mitch Drewes, Hidden River Environmental Management, Terrace BC Ms. Suzanne Dupuis, Rio Tinto Alcan, Saguenay QC

Ms. Nathalie Fortin, Rio Tinto, Montreal QC Ms. Erica Olson, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver BC

Ms. Helene Pinard, Rio Tinto Alcan, Saguenay QC Mr. Shawn Zettler, Rio Tinto Alcan, Kitimat BC

Please cite this report as follows:

ESSA Technologies, J. Laurence, Limnotek, Risk Sciences International, Trent University, and Trinity Consultants. 2014. Sulphur Dioxide Environmental Effects Monitoring Program for the Kitimat Modernization Project. Program Plan for 2013 to 2018. Prepared for Rio Tinto Alcan, Kitimat, B.C. 99 pp.

PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE

GLOSSARY

ABBREVIA

1.0 INTR111

2.0 ATM22

3.0 HUM33

4.0 VEGE44

5.0 SOILS55

6.0 LAKE66

7.0 DETE

PLAN FOR 20

E SUMMARY ..

Y .....................

ATIONS ............

ODUCTION ....1.1 PURPOSE A1.2 SO2 EEM

1.3 DECISION R

OSPHERIC PAT2.1 INDICATOR2.2 METHODS

2.2.1 Atm2.2.2 Atm2.2.3 Ad2.2.4 Su

MAN HEALTH ...3.1 INDICATOR3.2 METHODS

3.2.1 Pre3.2.2 Su

ETATION.........4.1 INDICATOR4.2 METHODS

4.2.1 Vis4.2.2 S c4.2.3 Su

S ....................5.1 INDICATOR5.2 METHODS

5.2.1 Atm5.2.2 Lo5.2.3 Ma

to 5.2.4 Ba5.2.5 Su

ES, STREAMS A6.1 INDICATOR6.2 METHODS

6.2.1 Wa6.2.2 Atm6.2.3 Aq6.2.4 Am6.2.5 Su

ERMINATION O

KM

13 TO 2018

......................

......................

......................

......................AND SCOPE .......FRAMEWORK ....RULES .............

THWAYS ........RS ........................................mospheric SO2

mospheric S, bdditional studiemmary of Atm

......................RS AND THRESHOL.....................edicted annualmmary of Hum

......................RS AND THRESHOL.....................sible vegetatiocontent in hemmmary of Veg

......................RS AND THRESHOL.....................mospheric S deng‐term soil acagnitude of exdepletion of th

ase cation weatmmary of Soils

AND AQUATIC RS AND THRESHOL.....................ater chemistrymospheric S dequatic biota: fismphibians .......mmary of Lake

OF CAUSAL REL

P SO2 ENVIR

Table o.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

2 concentrationbase cation andes ....................mospheric Pathw

.....................LDS .....................................l number of SOman Health act

.....................LDS .....................................n injury caused

mlock needles ...etation actions

.....................LDS .....................................eposition and ccidification attchangeable cahese pools .......thering rates ..s actions, 2013

BIOTA ...........LDS .....................................y – acidificationeposition and csh presence / a.......................es, Streams an

LATIONSHIP TO

RONMENTAL

of Conte.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................n ......................d chloride depo........................way actions, 2

.....................

.....................

.....................O2‐associated rtions, 2013‐201

.....................

.....................

.....................d by SO2 ..................................s, 2013‐2018...

.....................

.....................

.....................critical load (CLributable to S dation pools (Ca,................................................3‐2018 .............

.....................

.....................

.....................n, and episodiccritical load (CLabsence per spe........................d Aquatic Biot

O KMP ..........

EFFECTS MO

ents .....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.......................osition ....................................013‐2018 .......

.....................

.....................

.....................respiratory resp18 ...................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.....................

.....................

.....................L) exceedance deposition ......, Mg, K, Na) co.....................................................................

.....................

.....................

.....................c pH change ....L) exceedance ecies on sensit.......................ta actions, 2013

.....................

ONITORING (

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

..................................................................................................................

......................

......................

......................ponses ...................................

......................

......................

...........................................................................................

......................

......................

......................risk ........................................ompared to S d.....................................................................

......................

......................

.............................................risk .................tive lakes ................................3‐2018 ............

......................

EEM) PROG

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

......................

......................

......................

.......................

.......................

......................

......................

......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

......................

......................

......................

.......................

.......................deposition, and.....................................................................

......................

......................

......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

......................

GRAM

i

....... V

..... VII

...... IX

....... 1

....... 1

....... 2

....... 5

....... 6

....... 6

....... 6 ........ 7 ........ 8 ........ 8 ...... 10

...... 11

...... 11

...... 13 ...... 13 ...... 14

...... 15

...... 15

...... 16 ...... 16 ...... 17 ...... 18

...... 19

...... 19

...... 23 ...... 23 ...... 24 d time ...... 25 ...... 26 ...... 28

...... 30

...... 30

...... 32 ...... 33 ...... 39 ...... 40 ...... 41 ...... 42

...... 43

PROGRAM

8.0 RIO T88

9.0 ANN99

10.0 REFE

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIXOF PILOT S

PLAN FOR 20

TINTO ALCAN M8.1 RECEPTOR‐8.2 FACILITY‐B

UAL REPORTIN9.1 ANNUAL R9.2 COMPREHE

RENCES .........

X A: QUESTION

X B. CHECKLIST

X C. QUANTITA

X D. LAKE RATIN

X E. FISH SAMP

X F. STATE‐OF‐K

X G. STATE‐OF‐

X H. DESIGN CO

X I. LIMING TRESTUDY ............

KM

13 TO 2018

MITIGATION R‐BASED MITIGAT

ASED MITIGATIO

NG, AND COMREPORTING AND CENSIVE REVIEW IN

......................

S THE SO2 EEM

OF PLANTS PO

ATIVE THRESHO

NG – METHOD

PLING LOCATIO

KNOWLEDGE S

KNOWLEDGE S

ONSIDERATION

EATMENT TO M......................

P SO2 ENVIR

RESPONSE FORION ................

ON ..................

PREHENSIVE RCONSULTATION ..N 2019 ...........

.....................

M PROGRAM W

OTENTIALLY SE

OLDS FOR LAKE

D AND RESULTS

ONS AND METH

SUMMARY FO

SUMMARY FO

NS FOR DETECT

MITIGATE ACID.....................

RONMENTAL

R UNACCEPTAB..........................................

REVIEW IN 201..........................................

.....................

WILL ANSWER

ENSITIVE TO SO

ES AND STREA

S ...................

HOD ..............

R LIMING OF S

OR LIMING OF L

TING TRENDS I

DIC EFFECTS O.....................

EFFECTS MO

BLE IMPACTS ...........................................

19 ............................................................

.....................

.....................

O2 .................

AMS AND AQU

.....................

.....................

SOILS .............

LAKES ...........

IN LAKE CHEM

N AN EEM STU.....................

ONITORING (

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

UATIC BIOTA ...

......................

......................

......................

......................

MISTRY ............

UDY LAKE: CON......................

EEM) PROG

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

NCEPTUAL DES......................

GRAM

ii

...... 47

...... 47

...... 48

...... 50

...... 50

...... 50

...... 51

...... 54

...... 64

...... 65

...... 67

...... 76

...... 78

...... 82

...... 89

SIGN .... 101

PROGRAM

Figure 1. O

Figure 2. S

Figure 3. D

Figure 4. S

Figure 5. E

Figure 6. C

Figure 7. C

Figure 8. S

Figure 9. C

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

PLAN FOR 20

Organization of

O2 EEM framew

Decision tree fo

emi‐natural up

xample showinmodelled .............

Conceptual diagconsiderpH decre

Conceptual (Soubetween

ummary of theby pathw

Cumulative freqpercent rthe solid

Map of the sev6, 12, 237, 16 and

Patterns of ch(bottom)neutraliz

Patterns of chlake pH (

Patterns of ch[NO3+CLfactors oorganic asmelter p

Within year rafrom Ontfor 27 ouAndrew

Long term trendiamondtriangles

Statistical pow(1996). ..

Illustration of lakes. ....

KM

13 TO 2018

f information in

work for KMP.

or quantitative

pland forest so

ng iterative cycd deposition ba.......................

gram of criteriaed vulnerable,ease or a critica

urce‐Pathway‐n sources and r

e questions thaway and recept

quency distribureduction in sp bar.) From: Ei

ven lakes that and 44) are ind 34 are indicat

anges in SO4 d) indicating no ze deposited ac

anges in SO2 e(bottom graph

anges in SO2 eL+Organic], (miother than KMPanions). This paplume and the

ange of pH (matario lakes. Forut of the 31 lakPaterson (Onta

nds in pH in Bluds. October pH . The mean pH

wer analyses fo.......................

hypothetical re.......................

P SO2 ENVIR

List o

n this SO2 EEM

.......................

thresholds of

oils in the study

cle of critical loased on emissi.......................

a for lake vulne, because its oral load exceeda

‐Receptor) modreceptors. Sour

at the KPIs andtor. ..................

ution of minimpecies along a lers et al. 1984

will be samplendicated by orated by blue bo

eposition (top acidification (icids, so no cha

missions, SO4 d) consistent wi

missions, SO4 diddle graph); aP (i.e., N emissattern might orefore receivin

aximum pH – mr lakes with anke years of dataario Ministry o

ue Chalk Lake samples (coin

H for each year

or detecting cha.......................

egional trends.......................

RONMENTAL

of Figure

Plan. .............

.......................

key performan

y area. Source:

oad exceedancions scenario, .......................

erability. Lake riginal pH was ance. ..............

del of SO2 emisrce: Figure 3.1‐

d informative in.......................

mum pH values pH continuum4. ....................

ed for fish presange borders aorders. ............

graph), lake [Si.e., lake [SO4] nge in ANC or

deposition andith acidification

deposition andnd lake pH (boions, sea salt accur for high Dng low levels o

minimum pH) v annual mean a. Source of daof Environment

in Ontario. All ciding with ther is shown by th

anges in lake A.......................

in the distribu.......................

EFFECTS MO

es

.......................

.......................

nce indicators.

: Figure 9.3‐2 f

ce, sulphur emiand revised (re.......................

15 is the only below 6.0 and.......................

ssions in the e‐1 from ESSA e

ndicators in th.......................

for field obser. (The medial m.......................

sence/absencearound their ph.......................

SO4] and ANC (increases, butpH). ...............

d lake [SO4] (ton due to KMP.

d lake [SO4] (toottom graph) cacidification, anDOC lakes closef S deposition.

versus mean anpH < 6, the pHata: Dr. Normat). ...................

sampled pH vae vertical grid lhe red bars for

ANC and SO. So.......................

ution of pH cha.......................

ONITORING (

........................

........................

........................

from ESSA et a

issions reductieduced) critica........................

one in the diagd it is not expec........................

nvironment, set al. 2013. ......

e SO2 EEM Pro........................

rvations of aquminimum pH v........................

. The four vulnhotographs, an........................

(middle graph)t sufficient wea........................

op graph), ANC .......................

op graph), ANCconsistent withnd/or climate‐e to the sea bu. ......................

nnual pH, for 6H range was lesan Yan (York Un........................

alues are showlines) are showr each year. .....

ource: Figure 4........................

anges across th........................

EEM) PROG

.......................

.......................

.......................

l. (2013). ........

on scenario, real load exceeda.......................

gram not cted to experie.......................

howing linkage.......................

ogram will answ.......................

uatic taxa, showvalue is indicate.......................

nerable lakes (Lnd reference La.......................

), and lake pH athering rates t.......................

C (middle graph.......................

C and other anih acidification ddriven releaseut far from the .......................

63 lake‐years oss than 0.3 pH niversity) and .......................

wn by the blue wn by the yello.......................

4 in Stoddard e.......................

he set of 7 EEM.......................

GRAM

iii

........ 2

........ 4

........ 5

...... 22 evised ance...... 24

ence a ...... 34 es ...... 44 wer, ...... 54 wing ed by ...... 66 Lakes akes ...... 76

to ...... 90 h), and ...... 91 ons due s of

...... 92 f data units

...... 95

ow ...... 97 et al. ...... 98 M ...... 99

PROGRAM

Table 1. Im

Table 2. In

Table 3. Ov

Table 4. Sc

Table 5. In

Table 6. Ov

Table 7. Sc

Table 8. KP

Table 9. Ov

Table 10. S

Table 11. K

Table 12. O

Table 13. S

Table 14. K

Table 15. O

Table 16. S

Table 17. E

Table 18. S

Table 19. Q

Table 20. A

Table 21. C

Table 22. C

Table 23. M

Table 24. R

Table 25. E

Table 26. C

Table 27. I

PLAN FOR 20

mpact categorie

formative indi

verview of met

chedule of wor

terim InformatProvincia

verview of met

chedule of wor

PI and informat

verview of met

Schedule of wo

KPIs and inform

Overview of me

Schedule of wo

KPI and inform

Overview of me

Schedule of wo

Evidentiary framKMP. SPRthe ques

SO2 reduction o

Questions and

Alignment of kewill answ

Criteria for rati

Criteria results the table

Method used tof Table

Rating results f(*) were

Estimate of wa(LAK012

Characteristics August 2

llustration of plakes in tconcern value is d

KM

13 TO 2018

es used in the S

cators for atm

thods for calcu

rk on the atmo

tive indicator fally approved a

thod for calcul

rk on the huma

tive indicator f

thods for calcu

ork on the vege

mative indicato

ethods for calc

ork on the soils

ative indicator

ethods for calc

ork on the surfa

mework for evR = Source‐Patstion in column

options and as

hypotheses th

ey performancwer. .................

ng of 10 lakes

for the 10 lakee. (Note: LAK01

o combine rati24. .................

for the 10 lakessampled in 20

ter retentiona and LAK054) h

of lakes includ2012. EEM Prog

pH, ANC and SOthe EEM Prograas long as the discussed in Se

P SO2 ENVIR

List

SO2 Technical A

ospheric pathw

ulating informa

spheric compo

for human heaair quality guid

ating the infor

an health comp

for vegetation.

ulating the KPI

etation compo

ors for soils. .....

culating the KP

s component o

rs for surface w

culating the KP

ace water com

valuating if acidthway‐Recepton 2. ..................

sociated timel

hat will be addr

ce and informa.......................

with either CL

es vulnerable l12 is hydrologic

ings on individ.......................

s with either C013 and have h

time (or residehave more than

ded in the EEMgram will rely o

O4 thresholds wam, based on lpH and ANC thection 6.2.2. ....

RONMENTAL

of Table

Assessment Re

ways. ..............

ative indicators

onent of EEM P

lth and Key Pedeline. .............

rmative indicat

ponent of the E

. ......................

and informativ

nent of the EE

.......................

PI and informat

of the EEM Prog

water. .............

PI and informat

mponent of the

dification has oor Diagram (Fig.......................

ine for reducti

ressed in the S

ative indicators.......................

exceedance o

akes, as well acally connecte

ual criteria int.......................

L exceedance igh certainty o

ence time) for n a 3‐month re

M Program. Cheon fall samplin

which would blake specific tithresholds are n.......................

EFFECTS MO

es

eport ..............

.......................

s for atmosphe

Program. ........

erformance Ind.......................

tor for human

EEM Program.

.......................

ve indicator fo

EM Program. ...

.......................

tive indicator f

gram. .............

.......................

tive indicators

e EEM Program

occurred and wgure 7). The las.......................

ion. .................

O2 EEM Progra

s with the ques.......................

or predicted ps their relativeed to End Lake

o the overall r.......................

or predicted on criteria 4 an

the ten acid‐seesidence time.

emical values sg. ...................

e established ftration curves.not exceeded. .......................

ONITORING (

........................

........................

eric pathways.

........................

dicator that wil........................

health. ...........

.......................

........................

or vegetation. ..

........................

........................

for soils. ..........

........................

........................

for surface wa

m. .....................

whether it is orst three colum........................

........................

am. .................

stions that the........................

pH > 0.1. ..........

e ratings. Sourc(LAK006).) ......

atings shown o........................

pH > 0.1. Lakend 5. ................

ensitive lakes. .......................

shown are from........................

for each of the. Exceeding SOThe calculatio........................

EEM) PROG

.......................

.......................

......................

.......................

ll based on a .......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

.......................

ater. ................

.......................

r is not related ns show answe.......................

.......................

.......................

SO2 EEM Prog.......................

.......................

ces are listed b.......................

on the bottom.......................

es with an aste.......................

All but two lak.......................

m sampling in .......................

e 7 acid‐sensitiv

4 thresholds isn of the Baseli.......................

GRAM

iv

........ 2

........ 6

........ 6

...... 10

...... 11

...... 13

...... 14

...... 15

...... 16

...... 18

...... 19

...... 23

...... 28

...... 30

...... 32

...... 42 to ers to ...... 45 ...... 49 ...... 55 gram ...... 62 ...... 67 below ...... 69 row ...... 74

risk ...... 75 kes ...... 84

...... 93 ve not a ine ...... 93

PROGRAM

Execu This docu(2013 to the Kitimwarrantestrategieimpacts c

The EEMand impamonitori

The plan have quaindicatortable pre

Pathway /Receptor

AtmosphePathways

Human Health

Vegetatio

Soils

Lakes andStreams, and AquaBiota

PLAN FOR 20

tive Sum

ument descr2018) unde

mat Modernized based on es if the outccausally rela

Program is acts from otng methods

distinguisheantitative thrrs which will esents a synt

/ Key Pe

eric s

The heprograwhen pSO2 amcome i

on Visible

Atmospload ex

Long‐techangeattribu

d

tic

Water

KM

13 TO 2018

mmary

ribes the mor the sulphuzation Projethe monitorcomes of moated to SO2 t

specific to Sher facilities are all outs

es two typesresholds for provide evithesis of the

rformance In

ealth sectionam and KPI wprovincially mbient air quin effect.

vegetation in

pheric S depoxceedance ris

erm soil acidie of base catiotable to S de

chemistry – a

P SO2 ENVIR

odeling and mur dioxide (SOct, and thresring results. onitoring andhat are cons

SO2 emissions, and researide of the sc

s of indicatoincreased mdence in sup indicators d

ndicators (KPI

n of the EEMwill be updatapplied uality guideli

njury caused

osition and crsk

ification (rateon pool) position

acidification

RONMENTAL

monitoring tO2) Environmsholds for inRio Tinto Ald modeling dsidered to be

ns from KMPrch and devecope of the E

rs: key perfomonitoring opport of key described in

Is) Info

Atm

Atm

Bas

ted

ines

Pre

by SO2 S co

ritical

e of

MaMg

Timpoo

Bas

Atmexc

Pre

Evidto K

Aquspe

Lak

EFFECTS MO

that is plannmental Effecncreased mocan will impdescribed in e unaccepta

P. Non‐SO2 Kelopment ofEEM Program

ormance indor for mitigatperformancthe plan:

ormative Indi

mospheric SO

mospheric S d

se cation dep

edicted annua

ontent in hem

agnitude of exg, K, Na)

me to depletiools (Ca, Mg, K

se cation wea

mospheric S dceedance risk

edicted steady

dence that pHKMP SO2 emi

uatic biota: fiecies on sensi

ke ratings

ONITORING (

ned for the ncts Monitorinonitoring or mplement SO2 this plan sh

able.

KMP emissiof new indicatm.

dicators (KPIstion, and infce indicators

icators

O2 concentrati

deposition

osition

al restricted a

mlock needles

xchangeable c

on of exchangK, Na)

athering rates

deposition ank

y state pH ve

H decrease isssions (ANC,

sh presence /itive lakes

EEM) PROG

next six yearsng Program mitigation ifmitigation ow adverse

ns, emissiontors or

s) which willformative s. The follow

ions

airway respon

s

cation pools (

geable cation

s

d critical load

rsus current p

s causally relaSO4, DOC)

/ absence per

GRAM

v

s for f

ns

l

wing

nses

(Ca,

d

pH

ted

r

PROGRAM

PLAN FOR 20

KM

13 TO 2018

P SO2 ENVIRRONMENTAL

Epi

Am

EFFECTS MO

sodic pH cha

mphibians

ONITORING (

nge

EEM) PROGGRAM

vi

PROGRAM

Glossa

acid depo

acidificat

acid neut

anion

base cati

base cati

critical lo

dissolved

dry depo

environm

facility‐b

F‐factor

informat

PLAN FOR 20

ary

osition

tion

tralizing cap

ons

on exchange

oad

d organic car

osition

mental effect

ased mitigat

ive indicato

KM

13 TO 2018

Tas

Ts

acity TAaa

Ac

A

e Tc

Apst

rbon Os

Taa

ts I

tion S

Ass

r Iptw

P SO2 ENVIR

Transfer of aatmosphere snow, sleet,

The decreasesaturation in

The equivaleANC and alkaalkalinity pluacids and oth

An ion with mcharge, e.g.,

An alkali or a

The replacemcations from

A quantitativpollutants besensitive elemo present kn

Organic carbsample (0.45

Transfer of saquatic envirand turbulen

mpacts on r

Sulphur diox

A simple wayspecifically thsulphate tha

ndicators thperformanceriggering adwill not trigg

RONMENTAL

cids and acito terrestriahail, cloud d

e of acid neu soil, by natu

ent capacity alinity are ofs additional her compou

more electroSO4

2‐

alkaline earth

ment of hydr soil particle

ve estimate oelow which sments of thenowledge

on that is di5 μm pore siz

ubstances frronments viant transfer of

eceptors fro

ide (SO2) em

y to represenhe proportiot is exchang

at will provie indicators, ditional moner mitigatio

EFFECTS MO

difying comal and aquatdroplets, par

utralizing capural or anth

of a solutionften used int buffering frnds

ons than pro

h metal (Ca2

rogen ions ines

of an exposusignificant he environme

issolved or uze in the Na

rom the atma gravitationf trace gases

om KMP SO2

mission redu

nt cation excon of incomied in the so

de supportiand may hanitoring or mn

ONITORING (

pounds fromic environmrticles, and g

pacity in waropogenic p

n to neutraliterchangeabrom dissocia

otons, giving

2+, Mg2+, K+,

n the soil wa

ure to one oarmful effecent do not o

unfilterable itional Surfac

mosphere to nal settling os and small p

emissions

ction at the

change procing acidity acil for base ca

ng informatave quantitatmodelling, b

EEM) PROG

m the ents via raingas exchange

ter, or base rocesses

ze strong acbly; ANC inclated organic

g it a negativ

Na+)

ater by base

or more cts on specifccur, accord

in a water ce Water Su

terrestrial aof large partparticles

KMP facility

cesses, ccompanyinations

ion for key tive threshout on their o

GRAM

vii

n, e

cids; udes

e

fied ding

rvey)

nd icles

y

ng

olds own

PROGRAM

key perfo

liming

pH

receptor

receptor

RIO TINT

wet depo

PLAN FOR 20

ormance ind

s

‐based mitig

TO ALCAN pr

osition

KM

13 TO 2018

dicator Iaa

To

Atnh

Cfa

gation Rala

operties Ct5

Tah

P SO2 ENVIR

ndicators thadditional mand/or facilit

The additionor sediment

A measure ohe lower theneutral; a difhydrogen ion

Componentsrom SO2 emand lakes, str

Receptor‐speair quality adakes

Core set of che Kitimat S5469

Transfer of saquatic envirhail, and clou

RONMENTAL

at will have onitoring orty‐based mit

of any baseor to increas

f how acidice pH value, tfference of 1n activity

s of the envirmissions fromreams and a

ecific actionsdvisories in lo

ontiguous laSmelter betw

ubstances frronments viaud droplets)

EFFECTS MO

quantitativer modelling, tigation

e materials tose acid neut

c or basic a sthe more ac1 pH unit ind

ronment assm KMP: humaaquatic biota

s to reduce eocal commu

ands owned ween Haisla

rom the atma precipitati

ONITORING (

e thresholdsreceptor‐ba

o neutralizetralizing capa

solution is, ocidic the soludicates a ten

sessed for poan health; va

exposure orunities or lim

by Rio TintoBoulevard a

mosphere to ion (e.g., rain

EEM) PROG

s triggering ased mitigati

surface watacity

n a scale of ution; pH 7 isnfold change

otential impegetation; s

r effects, sucming of selec

o Alcan arouand District L

terrestrial an, snow, slee

GRAM

viii

ion,

ter

0‐14; s e in

pacts oils;

ch as ted

nd Lot

nd et,

PROGRAM

Abbre

<

≤

>

≥

[ ]

Al

ANC

Bc

BC MOE

Ca2+

CL

Cl‐

DOC

EEM

H+

K+

KMP

KPI

Mg2+

Na+

NH4+

NO3‐

RTA

SO42‐

SO2

STAR

PLAN FOR 20

eviations

KM

13 TO 2018

s

delta, mea

is less than

is less than

is greater

is greater

The conce

Aluminum

Acid neutr

Base catio

British Col

Calcium

Critical loa

Chloride

Dissolved

Environme

Hydrogen

Potassium

Kitimat Mo

Key perfor

Magnesium

Sodium

Ammonium

Nitrate

Rio Tinto A

Sulphate

Sulphur di

SO2 Techn

P SO2 ENVIR

aning quanti

n what follow

n or equal to

than what fo

than or equa

entration, e.g

m

ralizing capa

ons

umbia Minis

ad

organic carb

ental effects

m

odernization

rmance indic

m

m

Alcan

oxide

ical Assessm

RONMENTAL

tative chang

ws

o what follow

ollows

al to what fo

g., [SO2] mea

city

stry of Envir

bon

s monitoring

n Project

cator

ment Report

EFFECTS MO

ge (e.g. AN

ws

ollows

ans the conc

ronment

g

(for KMP)

ONITORING (

NC or SO2)

centration o

EEM) PROG

f sulphur dio

GRAM

ix

oxide

PROGRAM

1.0 In

1.1 P In 2013 aProject (Klines of eaquatic e The purpquestionlines of echanges mitigatio The scopand this this periodevelopmdepositioSO2 EEM This docuand decismitigatioidentified

Rfo

Fa The SO2 ETwo type

Kth

Inhsu

Sections in Figure

PLAN FOR 20

ntroduc

PURPOSE AND

a technical aKMP), to detevidence: effecosystems (

pose of the Ss that aroseevidence. Reto the scale on.

pe of the EEMplan focusesod will be apment relatedon and moniProgram.

ument descrsion rules baon if warrantd:

eceptor‐basor example a

acility‐based

EEM Programes of indicato

Key performahresholds) fo

nformative inave no decisupport of ke

2 through 61. Section 7

KM

13 TO 2018

tion

D SCOPE

ssessment (termine the fects on hum(lakes and st

SO2 Environm during the tesults from tor intensity

M Program es on the EEMpplied to impd to SO2 impitoring not s

ribes the moased on quated based on

sed – mitigatair quality ad

d – sulphur d

m focuses oor are recog

ance indicatoor increased

ndicator – wsion rules foey performan

present ind7 describes h

P SO2 ENVIR

ESSA et al. 2potential im

man health, vtreams, and

mental Effectechnical assthe EEM Pro of monitori

encompasseM Program foprove the Pract measurepecific to KM

odeling and mntitative indn these resu

tions that wodvisories in l

dioxide (SO2)

n indicators gnized:

or (KPI) – whd monitoring

which may har mitigation nce indicato

dicators and how a “causa

RONMENTAL

2013) was compacts of sulvegetation, taquatic biot

ts Monitorinsessment, angram will inng, as well a

s KMP SO2 eor first 6 yeaogram in 20ement and mMP SO2 impa

monitoring tdicator threslts. Two bro

ould be receocal commu

) emission re

which can b

hich will haveg and for mit

ave decisionon their owrs

methods foal relationsh

EFFECTS MO

ompleted folphur dioxidterrestrial ecta).

ng (EEM) Prond to monitform decisioas decisions

emissions at ars (2013‐20019. Other Kmitigation, macts are all o

that is plannholds for incad categorie

eptor‐specifiunities or ad

eduction at t

be causally r

e decisions rtigation

rules for incwn; instead t

r the pathwhip to KMP” w

ONITORING (

r the Kitimae (SO2) emiscosystems (s

ogram is to aor effects ofons regardinregarding th

full product018). What isMP emissionmonitoring fooutside of th

ned for the ncreased mones for mitiga

c in design ading lime to

the KMP fac

elated to SO

rules (quant

creased monhey will prov

ays and recewill be dete

EEM) PROG

t Modernizassions along soils), and

answer f SO2 along tng the need fhe need for

tion capacitys learned duns, researchor non‐KMP e scope of t

next six yearsnitoring or ations are

and applicato selected lak

cility

O2 emissions

itative

nitoring, butvide evidenc

eptors depicrmined for

GRAM

1

ation four

these for

y, ring and acid he

s,

ion, kes

.

t will ce in

cted

PROGRAM

indicatortake if unEEM repo

Figure 1. O

1.2 S Figure 2 overall p The first impacts oremain re Table 1. Im

The SO2 t(low) impwould fawhether KMP for decisions

Pa

Indirec

Dire

PLAN FOR 20

rs exceedingnacceptable orting and re

Organization

O2 EEM FR

illustrates thhases: pre‐K

phase begaof SO2 emisselevant for i

mpact catego

Impact C

Low

Moderat

High

Critical

technical asspact categorll into the yethese prediany of the res rules for ac

thway (Sec

ct, through S and acidifica

ect exposure tthe air

KM

13 TO 2018

g their threshimpacts occeview.

of informatio

RAMEWORK

he decision fKMP, ramp‐u

n pre‐KMP wsions from Knterpreting

ories used in t

Category I

te A

sessment prry, and that iellow (modections were eceptors wilction.

tion 2)

deposition ation

to SO2 in

P SO2 ENVIR

holds. Sectiocur, and Sect

on in this SO2

framework fup and initia

with the SO2

MP. Four pomonitoring

the SO2 Techn

Interpretation

No impact or a

Acceptable im

Unacceptable

Extremely una

redicted thatimpacts on herate) impactcorrect, andl fall into hig

La

RONMENTAL

on 8 summartion 9 descri

EEM Plan.

for the SO2 El KMP opera

2 technical asotential imparesults from

nical Assessm

n

acceptable imp

pact but in nee

impact; mitiga

cceptable imp

t impacts onhuman healtt category. Td if EEM resugher impact

Hu

V

akes and str

EFFECTS MO

rizes the actibes the sche

EEM Programation (2013‐2

ssessment tact categoriem the SO2 EE

ment Report

pact

ed of closer sc

ation action ne

pact; mitigation

n vegetation th, soil, and The SO2 EEMults indicatecategories t

Rece

uman healt

Vegetation

Soils (Se

reams, & aq

ONITORING (

tions that Rioedule and co

m. It is divide2018), and 2

o determinees were idenM Program

rutiny

eeded

n action neede

would fall inwater and a

M Program w that actual than predict

ptor

th (Section 3

(Section 4)

ection 5)

quatic biota

EEM) PROG

o Tinto Alcanontent for SO

ed into three2019 onward

e the potentntified, and (Table 1):

ed

nto the greeaquatic biotawill determinoutcomes uted, describe

3)

a (Section 6

GRAM

2

n will O2

e d.

ial

en a ne under e the

6)

PROGRAM

In additioassessmeoutcome

Tcae“t

Tthtwim

Itimm

The secooperatio

EvaTm

EvubT

UonTin

Annual Swell as aplans for The thirdlearned dand whic

PLAN FOR 20

on, the SO2 Eent (presentes for the rec

he pre‐KMPategory. In oither too higthumbs up”.

The pre‐KMPhe assessmewo “thumbsmpacts.

t is unclear wmpact risk – mark.

ond phase ocn. It is focus

vidence thatnd/or that this will requmonitoring, o

vidence thatnderestimate) low ( his will requ

Unclear evidebserve that o higher thahis will requncrease the f

O2 EEM Progny mitigatior the next ye

d phase begiduring the fich have not.

KM

13 TO 2018

EEM Programted in Appenceptors:

assessmentother words,gh, or correc.

P assessmenent was over down”, dep

whether the represented

ccurs in 2013ed on learni

t the technicthe impacts auire mitigatioor both.

t the assessmted the impa ) or modeuire no mitig

ence either wa lake is acidan moderateuire no mitigfrequency o

gram reportn that has bar will also b

ins in 2019, rst 6 years aBased on th

P SO2 ENVIR

m will answendix A). The a

t overestima, the impact ct. In the fram

t underestimrly optimisticpending on t

assessmentd in the fram

3 to 2018, fring, through

cal assessmeare (or are eon and an es

ment correcact categoryerate ( ation, but m

way due to ldifying) ( e ( ). ation, but mr number of

ts will be proeen undertabe develope

when a repoand assesseshis report a d

RONMENTAL

er questionsanswers will

ated or accurcategory prmework, thi

mated the imc – representhe implicati

underestimmework as “t

rom KMP ram regular eva

ent underestexpected to scalation in e

tly or overes( ) but t ).

may require m

ack of time ), and the i

may require mf monitoring

oduced durinaken during d based on t

ort will be prs which quesdecision will

EFFECTS MO

s that arose dl result in on

rately estimredicted in ths situation is

mpact categonted in the frons of the u

mated or ovethumbs dow

mp‐up throuluation of re

timated the be) high ( either the fre

stimated thethe impacts

modification

for effects timpact categ

modificationg locations, o

ng the first 6the precedithese result

roduced thastions have b made abou

ONITORING (

during the tene of three p

ated the imphe assessmes represente

ory. In otherramework asunderestima

erestimated wn” with a qu

ugh to the fiesults design

impact cate ) or critequency or

e impact catare (or are s

ns to monito

o be manifegory is still e

ns to monitoor both.

6 years to cong year. Anns.

t synthesizebeen sufficiet what mon

EEM) PROG

echnical possible

pact ent was ed by a

r words, s one or tion of

the uestion

rst years of fned to provid

egory ( ical ( )extent of

tegory ( still expecte

oring.

ested (e.g., toestimated to

oring, either

onvey resultsnual monito

es what has bently answeritoring shou

GRAM

3

full de:

) ).

), or ed to

o be

to

s as ring

been red uld

PROGRAM

continueaccording

Figure 2. S

PLAN FOR 20

e, and the freg to what is

SO2 EEM fram

KM

13 TO 2018

equency of rlearned.

mework for KM

P SO2 ENVIR

reporting. Th

MP.

RONMENTAL

he SO2 EEM

EFFECTS MO

Program is e

ONITORING (

expected to

EEM) PROG

evolve over

GRAM

4

r time

PROGRAM

1.3 D The cyclequantitatincreasedbased mimitigatiomitigatio Results o

ww

m

re

th

Figure 3. D

KP

R

PLAN FOR 20

DECISION RU

e within the tive, threshod monitoringitigation areons are not feons will be im

of the synthe

which KPIs anwhat level of

modifications

efinement to

he timeline f

Decision tree

I exceeds thre

KPI exceeds

KPI exceeds t

N

eport on mon

KM

13 TO 2018

LES

second phasold‐based “dg are lower te lower than easible, or amplemented

esis and com

nd informatiintensity,

s to monitor

o KPI thresho

for the next

for quantitat

eshold for incre

Yes

thresholds fomitigation?

No

thresholds for mitigation?

No / NA

nitoring and m

P SO2 ENVIR

se (2013‐20decision rulethan threshothresholds fre impleme.

mprehensive

ve indicator

ring methods

olds (decisio

comprehen

tive threshold

Inc

eased monito

r facility‐based?

receptor‐base?

odelling resultso what

RONMENTAL

18) of the frs” as illustraolds for mitifor facility‐bnted but fou

review in 20

rs should be

s,

on rules), an

sive review.

ds of key perf

crease monito

ring? No

d Yes

ed Yes

ts; and whetheactions were

EFFECTS MO

ramework inated in Figurgation, and based mitigatund to be ine

019 will info

monitored i

d

formance ind

ring

Imb

Implembase

er any threshotaken

ONITORING (

n Figure 2 invre 3. Threshthresholds ftion. If recepeffective, fa

orm decision

in 2019 and

icators.

Continlevel of

mplement facibased mitigati

ment receptored mitigation

olds were exce

EEM) PROG

volves a set oolds for for receptorptor‐based cility‐based

s about:

beyond and

nue current f monitoring

lity‐ion

r‐

eeded, and if

GRAM

5

of

‐

d at

PROGRAM

2.0 A

2.1 IN Table 2. In

Informativ

Atmospheconcentra

Atmosphedepositio

Base catio

2.2 M Table 3. O

Informativ

Atmospheconcentra

Atmosphedepositio

Base catio

PLAN FOR 20

Atmosph

NDICATORS

nformative in

ve indicators

eric SO2 ation

eric S n

on deposition

METHODS

Overview of m

ve indicators

eric SO2

ation

eric S n

on deposition

KM

13 TO 2018

heric Pat

ndicators for a

Thresholdor mitigat

- Not applinformatreceptor

- Not applinformatreceptor

n - Not applload (CL)

methods for c

Method o

ContinuouRoad, Whas well as

Wet depo

Estimationpilot testinancillary m

n Wet depoLakelse La

P SO2 ENVIR

thways

atmospheric p

s for increaseion

icable; will sutive indicatorsrs

icable; will sutive indicatorsrs

icable; will su modelling

alculating inf

overview

us analyser mitesail, Riverlthe MOE‐ope

osition monito

n of dry depong of passive meteorologica

osition monitoake

RONMENTAL

pathways.

ed monitoring

upport KPIs ans for the

upport KPIs ans for the

upport critica

ormative ind

measurementsodge, Kitamaerated station

oring stations

osition of S (gasamplers; paal monitoring

oring and mod

EFFECTS MO

g Indicato

nd - Predicrespon

- VisibleSO2

- Atmosload (C

nd - Atmosload (C

- Long‐tattribu

- Water

l - Atmosload (C

icators for at

s of SO2 air coaat Village andn at Terrace

s at Haul Road

aseous S usinarticulate S usg)

delling based

ONITORING (

ors to be join

cted annual renses (3‐year r

e vegetation i

spheric S depCL) exceedan


term soil acidutable to S de

r chemistry ‐ a


mospheric pa

oncentrationsd possibly als

d and Lakelse

ng continuoussing a filter pa

d on data from

EEM) PROG

ntly considere

estricted airwrolling averag

injury caused

position and cce risk


dification eposition

acidification


athways.

s from Haul so Lakelse Lak

e Lake

s analysers anack; requires

m Haul Road a

GRAM

6

ed

way ge)

d by

ritical

ritical

ritical

ke,

nd

and

PROGRAM

2.2.1 A

Sampling E

KCcoe

Sampling M

b Monitori C

m How and U

toea

1 The numb2 Four linesactual SOsamplers

PLAN FOR 20

Atmospheric

g locations: ssential locaitimat), Riveamp should ontinuous SOstablish a co

g timing, freqMaintain opee fully imple

ng protocolsontinue to f

maintenance

d when moniUsing continuo post‐KMP ach year frond at steady

A. Post‐K1. 2.

3.

4. B. Refine

desira1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

ber and locatios of evidence wO2 concentratios.

KM

13 TO 2018

SO2 concent

ations for coerlodge (lowalso be conO2 monitorinontinuous sa

quency and eration of coemented and

s and samplfollow the m, calibration

itoring data uous analyseconcentratiom 2015 to 2y‐state operaKMP MonitoCollect andCollect andand meteoModel actmodeling sCompare m

e CALPUFF Mable agreemIdentify mTest each Define refRun refineCompare roverall im

on of continuowill provide insons, CALPUFF m

P SO2 ENVIR

tration

ntinuous samer Kitimat), tinued until ng will occurampler statio

duration: ntinuous and at steady‐s

ing methodsmonitoring pr, and data c

will be evaluer data fromons modelle2019). This tiations by theoring Data Std Quality‐Asd Quality‐Asorological daual emissionsystem (inclmodelled reModelling Ment between

model refinemoption indivined CALPUFed CALPUFF refined CALPprovement i

us monitoring sights on spatiamodeling of SO

RONMENTAL

mplers: HauKitamaat Vilthe analyser at the newon at Terrace

nalysers throstate operat

s: rotocol for collection an

uated: 2014 to 201ed for the STimeline assue end of 201tudy: ssure 12 monssure 12 monata for correns from 12‐muding CALMsults to monethods (if thn model resument optionvidually to deFF model memodel for 12PUFF model in model‐mo

stations is subal distribution O2 concentratio

EFFECTS MO

l Road (fencllage (Haislaer is relocatew Lakelse Lake.2

ough 2018 (ttions by the

ontinuous ad quality rev

18, compareTAR (completumes that KM17.

nths of postnths of SO2 cesponding timmonth perioMET for new nitoring datahe Monitorinults and mos etermine effethods base2 months poresults to monitor agree

bject to finalizaof SO2: 5‐6 conons, S content

ONITORING (

celine), Whit)).1 Monitored to Lakelseke site. In ad

his assumesend of 2017

analysers incview.

e measured ted in the firMP will be fu

‐KMP emisscontinuous mme period. d using the period) usina ng Data Studnitoring data

fect on moded on Step 2 ost‐KMP actmonitoring daement

ation in 2018. ntinuous sampin hemlock ne

EEM) PROG

tesail (upperring at the Ke Lake; and tdition, MOE

s that KMP w7).

cluding

concentratiorst quarter oully impleme

ions data monitoring d

CALPUFF g STAR meth

dy does not sa):

el performatests ual emissionata to confir

plers measuringeedles, and pas

GRAM

7

r KMP then E will

will

ons of ented

data

hods

show

nce.

ns rm

g ssive

PROGRAM

2.2.2 A

Depositioanalyses depositiocation de Sampling

Sampling

Monitori

How and

2.2.3 A

2.2.3.1

Considerconcentrcollection Sampling It

co

PLAN FOR 20

Atmospheric

on monitorinfor predictinon of base caeposition wo

g locations: The NADPLakelse LaprecipitatRegional owestern N

g timing, freqEstablishmyears to eLakelse La

ng protocolsWet deponetwork p(http://nasulphur (Ssodium (N

d when moniS depositiAssessmeBase catioand excee

Additional st

Passive S

ration is alsorations at a bn for this ind

g locations: t is essential ontinuous m

KM

13 TO 2018

S, base cati

ng will includng critical loations was zould increase

P site at Hauake providestion chemistobservationNorth Ameri

quency and ment and coevaluate bacake will prov

s and samplosition moniprotocols foadp.sws.uiucS), nitrogen Na+); as well

itoring data ion maps wient Report (Fon precipitatedance map

tudies

Samplers

o being givenbroader suitdicator.

that the pasmonitoring st

P SO2 ENVIR

ion and chlo

de S, base caad exceedanero. This wae critical loa

ul Road and ts the most retry. s may be sucan network

duration: ontinued mockground S, bvide the mos

ing methodstoring will br sample colc.edu). The a(N), calciumas chloride

will be evalull be generaFigure 7.6‐5 tion chemists to incorpo

n to the use oe of location

ssive sampletations to en

RONMENTAL

oride deposit

ations and cnce in soils aas a conservads and redu

the proposeelevant data

pplementedks, and regio

onitoring at tbase cation ast valuable d

s: e carried oullection, hananalysis of w (Ca2+), mag(Cl‐).

uated: ted, as was in ESSA et atry maps wilorate base ca

of passive sans, to increas

ers in the pilnsure they co

EFFECTS MO

tion

hloride. Theand surface wative assumpce estimate

d site at Laka to define b

d with existinonal maps of

two NADP stand chloridedata.

ut by the NAndling and anwet depositionesium (Mg

done for thel. 2013) l be used toation deposi

amplers to mse the spatia

ot programorrelate wel

ONITORING (

e SO2 technicwater assumption, as nons of exceeda

kelse Lake, nbackground b

ng observatif precipitatio

tations provie deposition

DP followingnalysis on samples wg2+), potassiu

e KMP SO2 T

o revise regiotion.

monitor atmal coverage

be co‐locatell (r > 0.8) wi

EEM) PROG

cal assessmemed that n‐marine baance.

oting that base cation

ons from on volume.

iding data fo. In this resp

g standard N

will include um (K+), and

Technical

onal critical l

ospheric SOof data

ed with ith continuo

GRAM

8

ent

ase

or 3+ pect,

NADP

load

O2

ous

PROGRAM

SOco

Sampling Ex

deth2a

Monitori Fo

sap

How and P

as If

uco

2.2.3.2

The meth

2.2.3.3

A rationa2015.

PLAN FOR 20

O2 monitorsontinuous m

g timing, freqxamine the evelopmentnvironment he pilot prog018, expandir concentra

ng protocolsollow the pramplers are rogram by t

d when moniassive sampssess the acf a full‐scale sed to evaluompared to

Dry Depo

hod for estim

Ambient

alization pro

KM

13 TO 2018

s (as such themonitors).

quency and results of tht of protocolof the studygram is succeding to includtions.

s and samplrotocol for thproven effehe first quar

itoring data pling data frocuracy of papassive samuate the relathe distribu

osition Estim

mating dry d

Air Network

cess for amb

P SO2 ENVIR

e pilot progr

duration: e passive ms for 2015 try area. Condessful, implede near‐ and

ing methodshe passive saective, develorter of 2015

will be evaluom 2015 willassive samplmpling progrative distribution of mea

mation

deposition w

k Rationaliza

bient air mo

RONMENTAL

ram is depen

onitoring corials and futduct a pilot pement at a lad far‐field loc

s: ampling piloop a revisedto augment

uated: l be compareers. am is implemution of CALPsured conce

will be develo

ation

nitoring stat

EFFECTS MO

ndent upon

onducted in ure expandeprogram for arger scale ications to ca

ot program ind passive difft continuous

ed with cont

mented, dataPUFF modelentrations at

oped in 2015

tions (numb

ONITORING (

reliable ope

2011‐2012, ed monitorinpassive samn summer oapture a spa

n 2014. If thfusive SO2 ms SO2 analyse

tinuous ana

a from 2016led concentrt the passive

5.

ber and locat

EEM) PROG

ration of

to inform ng in the hummpling in 201of 2016, 2017atial gradient

e passive monitoring ers.

lyser data to

6 to 2018 wilrations e samplers.

tion) will beg

GRAM

9

mid 15. If 7 and t of

o

l be

gin in

P

2

T

Topic

AtmosConceContinAnalys

AtmosConcePassivSO2 M

Wet DS , BaChlori

Dry D

Repor

PROGRAM PLAN FO

2.2.4 Summar

Table 4. Schedule

c

spheric SO2 entrations – nuous sers

MaintacontinuAssess[SO2] aKMP C

spheric SO2 entrations – ve Diffusive

Monitoring

Deposition – ase Cations, de

MaintastationLakels

eposition

rting Annua

OR 2013 TO 2018

ry of Atmospher

e of work on the a

2013

ain existing 4 uous SO2 analysers. s and compare at Haul Road vs Campsite.

–

ain 2 rain chemistry ns (Haul Road and e Lake).

–

l reporting

ric Pathway act

atmospheric com

2014

Maintain existing 4 continuous SO2 analy

Write up 2011-2012 passive monitoring reuse to inform design lcost pilot program witnon-TEA based sampat least 3 sites to see they correlate well witcontinuous SO2 monitMaintain 2 rain chemistations (Haul Road aLakelse Lake).

Determine entity to develop method for estimating dry depositusing existing data.

Annual reporting

tions, 2013‐201

mponent of EEM P

2

ysers. Maintain 4 conanalysers. Compare to mDevelop a proBC MOE to asof continuous agree on a strfor potentially station(s) to mrepresentative

sults; ow h

plers if th tors.

Implement pilo

stry and

Maintain 2 rainstations (Haul Lakelse Lake)

tion

Develop and ato see if this isgap. Relocateambient air anstation to allowdry deposition(or in 2016, as[SO2]). Annual reporti

KMP SO2 E

18

Program.

2015

ntinuous SO2

model output. otocol approved by ssess the location analysers and rategy and timeline relocating

more e locations.

MaCIsb

ot program. Ifpccddpa

n chemistry Road and ).

MsL

apply the method, s a significant data Campsite KMP

nd meteorological w for estimating n at Lakelse Lake s per the row for

CdRs

ing A

ENVIRONMENTA

2016

Maintain 4 continuous Sanalysers. Compare to model outpmplement the strategy station locations approvby BC MOE in 2015.

f (and only if) pilot program shows good correlations with continuous monitors, thdevelop revised passivediffusive SO2 monitoringprogram to augment SOanalysers. Maintain 2 rain chemiststations (Haul Road andLakelse Lake).

Continue to estimate drdeposition at both Haul Road and Lakelse Lakestations.

Annual reporting

AL EFFECTS MON

201

SO2

put. for ved

Maintain 4 contanalysers. Compare to moImplement the sstation locationby BC MOE in 2

hen e g O2

If methodology effective in 201conduct passiv

try d

Maintain 2 rain stations (Haul RLakelse Lake).

ry e

Continue to estdeposition at boRoad and Lakestations.

Annual reportin

NITORING (EEM)

7

tinuous SO2

odel output. strategy for s approved 2015.

MaintaanalysCompa

proven to be 5 pilot, e monitoring

If metheffectivconduprogra

chemistry Road and

MaintastationLakels[In 2012018 dand aschemis

timate dry oth Haul

else Lake

ContindeposRoad astation[In 2012018 d

ng Annua

) PROGRAM

10

2018

ain 4 continuous SO2 sers. are to model output.

hod proven to be ve in 2015 pilot, ct passive monitoring

am.

ain 2 rain chemistry ns (Haul Road and se Lake). 19, compare 2013-data to model output, ssess number of rain stry stations.]

nue to estimate dry ition at both Haul and Lakelse Lake

ns 19, compare 2013-data to model output.]

al reporting

PROGRAM

3.0 H

3.1 IN The perioto suppodose – reassociateSO2 ambprogram SO2 man In suppoambient 2015 to esee table Rio Tintodevelope

Table 5. Ibased on

Informatiindicator

Predicteannual numberSO2‐associatrespiratresponsyear rolaverage

PLAN FOR 20

Human H

NDICATORS A

od between ort the estabesponse heaed with KMPbient air quawill be upda

nagement ac

rt of the devair station mensure that te 4).

o Alcan Kitimed by the BC

Interim Infon a Provincia

ive Thre

ed

r of

ted tory ses (3‐ling e)

Not

KM

13 TO 2018

Health

AND THRESH

2014 and 20lishment of lth risk metrP derived SOlity guidelineated to incluctions.

velopment omonitoring nthe monitor

mat will also pC Ministry of

rmative indilly approved

eshold for inc

applicable

P SO2 ENVIR

OLDS

019 is an inta health indric is used to2 emissionse is establishude the new

of a health banetwork will ring stations

participate iEnvironmen

cator for hud air quality

creased monit

RONMENTAL

erim perioddicator for SOo inform the . Following 2hed, both seair quality g

ased key peundergo a rare represe

n an air quant.

uman healthguideline

toring

EFFECTS MO

for baselineO2 emissionEEM progra2019 or wheection 3 and guidelines an

rformance ireview and rentative of K

lity advisory

and Key Per

Indi

Atmcon

ONITORING (

e air quality s. As an inteam of the heen a provincitable 5b of tnd associate

ndicator, therationalizatioMP SO2 em

y system for

rformance In

cators to be

mospheric SOncentrations

EEM) PROG

data collecterim metric, ealth risks ially approvethe EEM ed

e Kitimat on process inissions (plea

SO2 when it

ndicator tha

jointly consid

O2

GRAM

11

ion a

ed

n ase

t is

at will

dered

PROGRAM

Future Keperformaindicator

The healtsection oEEM program KPI will bupdated provinciaapplied SO2 ambair qualitguidelinecome in effect.3

The healtambient future KPthere be data colleplan. Theusing too

3 Ambient capacity

4 The choicdispersio

PLAN FOR 20

ey nce

Thrincmo

th of the

and be when ally

ient ty es

th section ofair quality gPI will commnon‐attainmection, emise choice for aols such as d

air data collect(anticipated ince for attainmeon modeling.

KM

13 TO 2018

reshold for reased onitoring

f the EEM prguidelines comence when ment of the gssion reductiattainment oispersion mo

tion to supporn 2016). ent of the air q

P SO2 ENVIR

Thresholreceptormitigatio

rogram and ome in effectthe Smelterguidelines oion will be mof the air quodeling.

t the KPI will c

quality guidelin

RONMENTAL

ld for r‐based on

Tb

Snthinfoacremasp

KPI will be ut. The Ambier reaches fulnce in effect

managed in auality guideli

ommence whe

e will be based

EFFECTS MO

Threshold for based mitigati

Should therenon‐attainmehe guidelinen effect and ollowing 3 yapplicable dacollection, emeduction wimanaged in accordance wection 8 of tplan.4

updated wheent air data l metal prodt and followaccordance wne will be ba

en the Smelter

d on a scientifi

ONITORING (

facility‐ion

Injo

e be ent of es once

years of ata mission ll be

with the EEM

A

en provinciacollection toduction capawing 3 years owith sectionased on a sc

r reaches full m

ic process usin

EEM) PROG

ndicators to bointly conside

Atmospheric concentratio

lly applied So support thacity. Shouldof applicable 8 of the EEMcientific proc

metal productio

g tools such as

GRAM

12

be ered

SO2 ns

SO2 e e M cess

on

s

PROGRAM

3.2 M Table 6. O

Informat

Predictednumber oassociatedresponses

3.2.1 P

The analy

1) Aw

2) OMmo

3) Tuw(e

4) Eco

PLAN FOR 20

METHODS

Overview of m

ive indicator

annual of SO2‐d respiratory s

Predicted ann

ysis will be c

Air dispersionwere studiedOne or more Mean ratio inminute averaf a binned hhe refined ased to gene

were previoue.g., exerciseach year staompared to

KM

13 TO 2018

method for ca

Method o

Repeat onsame baseon the SOratio unde

nual numbe

conducted a

n modelling in the STARmonitoring n the Post‐KMage within eaistogram wiir dispersionrate health rusly in the STe frequency rting with ththe results f

P SO2 ENVIR

lculating the

overview

n an annual beline assumpt2 monitoring er Post‐KMP c

er of SO2‐ass

ccording to t

will be repeR (Upper andstations wilMP context. ach hour. A dll be used inn model outrisk estimateTAR. The basand locationhe third yearfrom the STA

RONMENTAL

informative i

asis the calcutions, but usinetwork andconditions.

sociated resp

the followin

ated annuald Lower Kitiml be chosen tThe peaks wdistribution n later calculput and the es (annual reselines assumn, indoor verr, the rollingAR.

EFFECTS MO

indicator for

ulations condng air dispersd updated est

piratory resp

ng process:

ly for the samat, Kitamaato generate will be calcufor the peakations. updated Peespiratory aimptions fromrsus outdoog three‐year

ONITORING (

human health

ucted in the Ssion modellinimates of the

ponses

me near‐fieat Village, Se estimates olated as the k‐to‐mean ra

eak‐to‐Meanirway eventsm the STAR wr exercise). annual aver

EEM) PROG

h.

STAR, under tng refined base Peak‐to‐Me

ld locations ervice Centreof the Peak‐thighest 5‐atio in the fo

ratio will bes) exactly aswill be appli

rage will be

GRAM

13

the sed an

as e). to‐

orm

e they ed

TASc

PROGRAM

3.2.2 Su

Table 7. S

Topic Atmospheric SO2 concentration

PLAN FOR 20

ummary of H

chedule of w

2013 –

KM

13 TO 2018

Human Hea

work on the hu

2014–

P SO2 ENVIR

alth actions,

uman health

4 Increaaccessambiedata tocomm Reportassocipredictrespon

RONMENTAL

2013‐2018

component o

2015 se sibility of nt air quality o the unity.

t on SO2-ated ted airway nses.

Rapr

EFFECTS MO

of the EEM Pr

2016 Report on SO2-associated predicted airway responses.

ONITORING (

rogram.

2017Report on Sassociated predicted airresponses.

EEM) PROG

7 O2-

rway

Reporassocipredicrespon

GRAM

14

2018 rt on SO2-iated

cted airway nses.

PROGRAM

4.0 V

4.1 IN Table 8. K

Key performaindicator

Visible vegetatioinjury cauby SO2

Informativindicator

S contenthemlock needles

S contenby passiv

5“Severe” a single slast 2 weinspectio

6 Thresholdthe visibl

7 Based on

PLAN FOR 20

Vegetati

NDICATORS A

KPI and inform

nce Threshincreamonit

on used

More occasisymptinjury Tinto Aproperelate

Actionambiemeteoand KMprodufind thcausesvisual freque

ve Thresho

in An incr(from pfor 3 co

Action:data anpotentifrequen

t in hemlockve monitors

means more thspecies at an ineeks of August ons) to determds for increasele injury KPI. historical mon

KM

13 TO 2018

on

AND THRESH

mative indicat

hold for sed oring

than onal toms of SO2 outside of RiAlcan Kitimatrties, causallyd to KMP

n: assess ent air data, orological datMP SO2 ction data to he potential s; and increasinspection ency to annua

old for increa

ease of morepre‐KMP baseonsecutive ye

assess ambiend KMP SO2 pial causes; anncy to annual

k needles wiif the pilot d

han 50% of thenspection locatto the first 10 ine if the damaed monitoring a

nitoring of S in

P SO2 ENVIR

OLDS

tor for vegeta


o t y

ta

se

al

Not applthere arereasonabreceptormitigatio

ased monitori

e than 1 standeline data)7 inears, causally

ent air data, mproduction dad increase visl

ll be used todescribed in

e leaf area is netion outside thdays of Septemage seen the fiare not applica

vegetation (19

RONMENTAL

ation.

ld for r‐based on

Tb

icable – e no ble r‐based ons

SsyinTcKosoimsyintodm

AS

ing6

dard deviationn 20% of the srelated to KM

meteorologicta to find thesual inspectio

o validate thSection 2 is

ecrotic due to he RTA boundamber). It wouldirst year is “repable. This indic

989‐2011) (Tab

EFFECTS MO

Threshold for based mitigati

Severe & repeymptoms of Snjury outside Tinto Alcan prausally relateKMP, includingof economic oocial/traditiomportance, oymptoms of Snjury causallyo KMP at longdistance (>15kmonitoring loc

Action: reductSO2 emissions

Indic

n sites MP cal e on

- Atm- Wat

- Soil- Atm

e air modellundertaken

SO2 exposure ry at the insped take at least peated”. ator will assist

ble 9.2‐1 in the

ONITORING (

facility‐ion

Injo

eated5 SO2 of Rio roperties ed to g species or onal or SO2 y related g‐km) cations tion in s

- A

- S

- A

cators to be jo

mospheric SO2

ter chemistry

chemistry mospheric S (w

ing, and coun and proves

on more than ection time in l2 years (2 late

t with interpret

e STAR (ESSA e

EEM) PROG


Atmospheric concentratio

S content in hemlock nee

Atmospheric deposition (specifically, wdeposition)

ointly conside

2 concentratio

y

wet) depositio

uld be replacs effective.

50% of the plaate summer (te‐summer

tation of result

et al. 2013)).

GRAM

15

be ered

SO2 n

dles S

wet

ered

on

on

ced

ants of the

ts for

PROGRAM

4.2 M Table 9. O

Key perfoindicator

Visible veinjury cau

Informativ

S contentneedles

4.2.1 V

Sampling

Sampling

Monitori

How and

8 Visual surneedles f

PLAN FOR 20

METHODS

Overview of m

ormance

egetation used by SO2

ve indicator

in hemlock

Visible veget

g locations: Areas witAssessmeAdditionathe KMP S

g timing, freqVisual insgrowing sincreasedFrequenc2018.

ng protocolsAccordingA list of veto SO2 wilinspectiondetermin

d when moniData fromis significaDiagnosinsymptom

rveys could pofor S content.

KM

13 TO 2018

methods for c

Method o

Visual insp

Method o

Yearly che

tation injury

h existing veent Report (Eal locations wSO2 Technica

quency and pection andseason (late d to annual ify and durati

s and samplg to visual inegetation spll be incorpon. During thee the presen

itoring data m 2014 to 20antly affecteng injury to vs and patter

tentially also b

P SO2 ENVIR

alculating the

overview

pection for SO

overview

emical analys

y caused by S

egetation suESSA et al. 20where criticaal Assessme

duration: evaluation August to eaf the threshoion after 201

ing methodsspection propecies in theorated into ae annual insnce of specie

will be evalu018 will be ued comparedvegetation drn of injury,

be done during

RONMENTAL

e KPI and info

O2 injury ever

is of S conten

SO2

rveys (Figur013)). al loads in sont Report).

will occur evarly Septemold for incre18 to be det

s: otocols docu study area ta checklist onpections, thes that may

uated: sed to deterd to the conddue to air poand the spe

g ‘in‐between’

EFFECTS MO

ormative indic

ry 2 years

nt in needles

e 8.4‐1 in th

oils are pred

very other yber). The insase monitorermined in 2

umented in that have ben the field sue checklist wbe sensitive

rmine whethdition at locllutants is aicies injured.

years if coincid

ONITORING (

cator for vege

he KMP SO2 T

icted to be e

ear8, near thspection frering is reach2019 based

Laurence (20een reportedurvey forms will also be ue to SO2 (see

her the healtations remoided by two .

dent with sam

EEM) PROG

etation.

Technical

exceeded (fr

he end of thquency will ed. on results to

010). d to be sens for visual used to Appendix B

th of vegetaote to KMP.factors: spe

pling hemlock

GRAM

16

rom

e be

o

sitive

B).

tion

ecific

PROGRAM

o

o

How to dbased mi There are

The follo

1. Cisoexn

2. IfinInlobth

4.2.2 S

Sampling

Sampling

PLAN FOR 20

Hydrogenplants or causes sycause tip chlorosis,pattern oSO2 often

Plants diffHypericumHF. Plants

determine thitigation is re

e two possibi. The ac

excessii. The ve

wing steps wo‐locate an s successful) bserved to dxposures areecessary emf the exposunjury, then tn that case, nocations whee used to dehresholds.

content in h

g locations: In locatiosampling

g duration anSamples wmid‐Septewarranted

KM

13 TO 2018

n fluoride (Hthe tips of nmptoms of inecrosis sim but that is gf injury is ge has a morefer in sensitim, mugo pins such as Ru

he magnitudeached for t

bilities: ctual concens of the concegetation at

would deteratmosphericwith the vedetermine the greater thamission reducres are withhe vegetationew threshoere effects wetermine the

hemlock nee

ns where coand inspect

nd frequencwill be collecember (Laurd based on t

P SO2 ENVIR

F) (gaseous needles or blinterveinal cmilar to HF ogenerally accenerally mar bleached apivity to the pne, cherry, anbus, Acer, an

e of emissiothis KPI:

ntrations andcentrations t the site is m

mine the quc monitor (ogetation inshe actual exan predictedctions to redin the rangeon apparentolds would bwere within te reductions

edles

ontinuous anion sites (La

y, and essencted near thrence 2010),these results

RONMENTAL

F) causes syade‐leaf plachlorosis or nn conifers. Itcompanied ginal for HF ppearance tpollutants asnd scouler wnd Phaseolu

ons reduction

d associatedand exposurmore sensitiv

uantitative reor a passive mpection/samposures thatd in the STARduce the expe predicted ily is more sebe calculatedthe acceptabs in emission

nd passive saurence 2010

ntial years ane end of the for at least s.

EFFECTS MO

ymptoms at tants (such asnecrosis on bt may also caby interveinand intervehan that dus well. Plantswillow are seus are sensiti

ns needed if

d exposures res predicteve than the

eduction necmonitor, if tmpling site(s)t are occurriR, we will usposure to then the STAR tensitive thand based on mble range, anns necessary

amplers are 0).

nd times: e growing sethe first thr

ONITORING (

the margins s gladiolus). Sbroadleaf plause some mal symptominal for SO2.e to HF. s such as glaensitive and ive and diag

f the thresho

(concentratd in the STAliterature in

cessary in exhe passive m) where the ing at that lose CALPUFF te acceptableto occur witn reported inmonitored exnd modelingto reach tho

operating an

ason from mree years, an

EEM) PROG

of broadleaSO2 generallants. It can marginal s as well. Th Injury due t

adiolus, diagnostic fnostic for SO

old for facilit

ion x time) aAR dicated

xposure: monitoring pinjury has bocation. If thto determine levels. hout causingn the literatuxposures at g studies woose new

nd at vegeta

mid‐August tnd longer if

GRAM

17

af ly

he to

or O2.

ty‐

are in

pilot been he e

g ure.

ould

ation

to

TVS

SHN

SEM(vsrjutr

R

PROGRAM

Monitori

How and

4.2.3 Su

Table 10.

Topic Vegetation Survey

S Content in Hemlock Needles

Sensitive Ecosystem Mapping (applies to vegetation, soils, and water receptors; listed ust once here o avoid repetition)

Reporting

PLAN FOR 20

ng protocolsMonitorinannual an

d when moniChemical in the winThe resultinspection

ummary of

Schedule of w

2013 –

–

–

Annual reportin

KM

13 TO 2018

s and samplng and sampnd biennial v

itoring data analysis wilnter. ts will be repn for the nex

Vegetation

work on the v

2014Add checklpresence / absence of sensitive spon field survform; conduvisible injursurvey. Continued vegetation sampling asLaurence (2Samples cnear the enthe growingseason froAugust to mSeptemberReview Preand Themamapping tothere are seecosystemsthe plume ncovered by existing netvegetation, surface watsampling si

ng Annual repo

P SO2 ENVIR

ing methodspling will be vegetation sa

will be evalul be conduct

ported to Mxt growing s

actions, 201

vegetation co

4 ist for

pecies vey uct ry

s per 2010). ollected nd of g m mid-mid-r.

Sampmid-Amid-S

edictive atic see if ensitive s within not the twork of soil and ter tes. orting Annua

RONMENTAL

s: done accordampling prot

uated: ted by Rio Ti

OE in Marcheason if nee

13‐2018

omponent of t

2015 – V

sCvsL

pling from August to September.

Smm

–

al reporting A

EFFECTS MO

ding to curretocols (Laur

into Alcan an

h, in time to eded.

the EEM Prog

2016 Visible injury survey. Continued vegetation sampling as per Laurence (2010).

Sampling from mid-August to mid-September.

–

Annual reporting

ONITORING (

ent procedurence 2010).

nd analysed

adjust samp

gram.

2017 –

Sampling fromid-August mid-Septemwarranted frresults in 202016.

–

Annual repor

EEM) PROG

res in use fo

and interpr

pling and

Visible survey.ContinuvegetatsamplinLauren

om to

mber, if rom 014 –

Samplimid-Aumid-Sewarranresults2016.

rting Annual

GRAM

18

or

reted

2018 injury . ued tion ng as per ce (2010).

ing from ugust to eptember, if nted from in 2014 -

–

reporting

PROGRAM

5.0 S

5.1 IN The first depositiospatial diResults wthe level KPI is obsactual chmitigatiofacility‐b Table 11.


Atmosphedepositiocritical loa(CL) exceedanrisk9

Long‐term

9 Even thoupredictioincrease

10 As descrsites on m

11 Informat

PLAN FOR 20

Soils

NDICATORS A

KPI for this ron data will bistribution awill reveal thof exceedanservation‐bahange in soil on are reacheased mitigat

KPIs and info

nce Threincremonmod

eric S n and ad

nce

S decausKMPexce1% (semuplain th(Figu

Actievaluncethe critimaprun withwhe

m soil For

ugh KMP will bon based on a cthrough monitribed in Sectionmineral soils cotion on the fea

KM

13 TO 2018

AND THRESH

receptor is pbe used as innd magnitude extent of ence (i.e. the ased: soil chebase cationed, and recetions will be

ormative indic

eshold for eased nitoring / delling

eposition sally related tP emissions eeding CL in >(~20 km2) of i‐natural and forest soihe study areaure 4)10

on: re‐uate ertainties in regional cal load pping and re‐the CL modelh new data ere required

one plot: a

become operatcombination oftoring of atmon 8.5‐2 of the Komprise 69% oasibility of this

P SO2 ENVIR

OLDS

prediction‐banputs for upde of exceedexpected immagnitude oemistry datas over time.eptor‐based implemente

cators for soil


to

>

ls

l

S depositrelated temissionCL in >5%of semi‐nupland fothe study200 yearprojectebase cati

Action: Papplicatilime/woreduce sand increcation poKMP leveto BC MO

For one o

tional during thf monitoring daospheric S depoKMP SO2 Technof the study aremitigation is p

RONMENTAL

ased: measupdated modedance of critmpact (i.e. hoof depositioa in selected For both KPmitigations ed.

ls.

ld for r‐based on

tion causally to KMP ns exceeding % (~100 km2) natural orest soils in y area within rs (based on d change in ions) Pilot on of od ash, to oil acidity ease base ools to pre‐els, subject OE11 approva

or more

he 6‐year perioata and modelosition and lonnical Assessmeea (1991 km2 oprovided in App

EFFECTS MO

ured soil cheeling of critictical loads ofow large an an greater thd plots will bePIs, if the thrare applied

Thresholdfacility‐bamitigation

l

S depositicausally reKMP emisexceeding>5% (~100semi‐natuupland forin the studwithin 100(based onprojected in base ca

Action: rein SO2 em

Decrease

od of this plan,ling. Confidencng‐term soil acient Report (ESSof 2,895 km2).pendix G.

ONITORING (

emistry datacal loads, to f acidity for farea might ban critical loe tracked toresholds for but prove in

d for sed n

Injo

on elated to ssions g CL in 0 km2) of ural rest soils dy area 0 years change tions) duction issions

- Ad

- ec

- Toc

in the - A

, risk of CL excece in these preidification. SA et al. 2013),

EEM) PROG

and measurdetermine tforest soils. be affected)oad). The seco determine receptor‐baneffective,


Atmospheric deposition Magnitude ofexchangeablecation pools (Mg, K, Na) Time to depleof exchangeacation pools (Mg, K, Na)

Atmospheric

eedance remadictions will

, undisturbed f

GRAM

19

red S the

and cond

ased

be ered

S

f e (Ca,

etion able (Ca,

S

ins a

forest

PROGRAM


acidificati(rate of chof base capool) attributabS deposit

Informativindicators

Magnitudexchangecation po(Ca, Mg, K

Time to depletionexchangecation po(Ca, Mg, K

12 The firsttwo datayear and

13 Threshocritical lo

PLAN FOR 20

nce Threincremonmod

ion hange ation

ble to ion

40%yrs odecrin excatioleasand causKMP

Actisoil modassesignobsecatioare tissuethe

ve s13

Thremiti

de of able ols K, Na)

- Nomodepoexc

of able ols K, Na)

- Nomoexc

resampling woa points for the 10‐year rate olds for increaseoad modeling.

KM

13 TO 2018

eshold for eased nitoring / delling

% decrease in or a 20% rease in 10 yrxchangeable on pools for at one elemendecrease is sally related tP emissions on: extendedsurvey and delling to ess spatial ificance of erved base on loss (i.e., there wider es over >1% ostudy area?)

esholds for ingation

ot applicable; odeling and capletion of excols in locationceeded

ot applicable; odeling for locceeded

ould occur ovee first synthesisof change. Samed monitoring/

P SO2 ENVIR


5

rs

at nt,

to

d

of

plots: a 4in 5 yrs12

decreaseexchangepools forelement(~20 km2

of semi‐nupland fobased onmodellindecreaserelated temission

Action: papplicatilime/woreduce sand increcation poKMP leveto MOE a

creased mon

supports critalculation of tchangeable cans where CL i

supports critcations where

er a 3‐year intes. Observed chmpling will be a/modelling, or

RONMENTAL

ld for r‐based on

40% decrease2 or a 20% e in 10 yrs in eable cation r at least one and in > 1% 2) of the areanatural orest soils, n dynamic ng, and e is causally to KMP ns pilot on of od ash to oil acidity ease base ools to pre‐els, subject approval

itoring or In

ical load time to ation s

-

-

ical load e CL is

-

-

erval (i.e. sampanges during tt 5 year intervmitigation, ar

EFFECTS MO

Thresholdfacility‐bamitigation

e magnitudeexchangeacation poo20% in 10 and in > 5km2) of thof semi‐naupland forsoils, basemodellingdecrease icausally reKMP Action: rein SO2 em

ndicators to b

Atmospheric(CL) exceeda

Time to deplpools (Ca, M


Magnitude o(Ca, Mg, K, Nexceedance

pling in 2015 anthat period wovals thereafter.e not applicab

ONITORING (

d for sed n

Injo

e of able ol of > years, % (~100 e area atural rest ed on g, and is elated to

duction issions

d

- ec

be jointly con

c S depositionance risk letion of exch

Mg, K, Na)

c S depositionance risk of exchangeabNa) relative to

nd then 2018) ould therefore . ble. These indic

EEM) PROG


deposition

Magnitude ofexchangeablecation pools (Mg, K, Na)

nsidered

n and critical

hangeable cat

n and critical

ble cation poo the level of

in order to havbe pro‐rated t

cators support

GRAM

20

be ered

f e (Ca,

load

tion

load

ols

ve o a 5‐

PROGRAM


Base catioweatherinrates

The thresthe recepSTAR useSO4

2–/ha/study doecosystethe STAREmissionthe area exceedanthe area and far fi

PLAN FOR 20

ve s13

Thremiti

on ng

- Nomo

sholds for boptor study ded a study ar/yr plume anmain was dems on mineR was referens Effects Assunder the mnce will be eunder the 7ield impacts

KM

13 TO 2018

esholds for ingation

ot applicable; odeling

oth of the KPomain. In threa along thend potentialefined in agrral soil (69%nced to this sessment (ESmodelled 7.5evaluated us7.5 kg SO4

2–/ owing to lo

P SO2 ENVIR

creased mon

supports crit

PIs for soils ahe absence oe Kitimat vally sensitive reement wit% of the studdomain areSSA et al. 205 kg SO4

2–/haing the origiha/yr plumeng‐range tra

RONMENTAL

itoring or In

ical load -

are related tof provincialllley encompterrestrial ah BC MOE, ay area). The a. More rece014), BC MOa/yr plume. nal domain e. Both domaansport of su

EFFECTS MO

ndicators to b


to a proportly‐establishepassing the mnd aquatic rand encomp proportionaently under E favoured aIn 2017 the area and anains captureulphur dioxid

ONITORING (

be jointly con

c S depositionance risk

tional areal eed air zone bmodelled poreceptor ecopassed 1991 al exceedanthe Kitimat an effects doproportionan effects dome near field ede emission

EEM) PROG

nsidered

n and critical

exceedance boundaries, st‐KMP 10 kosystems. Thkm2 of foresce reported Airshed omain basedal areal main definedemission imps.

GRAM

21

load

of the kg he sted in

d on

d by pacts

PROGRAM

Figure 4. S

PLAN FOR 20

Semi‐natural

KM

13 TO 2018

upland fores

P SO2 ENVIR

t soils in the s

RONMENTAL

study area. So

EFFECTS MO

ource: Figure

ONITORING (

e 9.3‐2 from E

EEM) PROG

ESSA et al. (20

GRAM

22

013).

PROGRAM

5.2 M

Table 12.

Key perfoindicators

Atmosphedepositioload (CL) risk

Long‐termacidificatiattributabdepositio

Informativ

Magnitudexchangepools (Ca,

Time to dexchangepools (Ca,

Base catioweatherin

5.2.1 A

The mon% of areanew soil Steps forfacility‐b

PLAN FOR 20

METHODS

Overview of

ormance s

eric S n and criticalexceedance

m soil ion ble to S n

ve indicators

de of able cation , Mg, K, Na)

epletion of able cation , Mg, K, Na)

on ng rates

Atmospheric

itoring metha with CL excsampling sit

r determininased mitigat1. Critica

such, reduc

2. Use Cmeet

3. Run thexcee

4. Iteratreduc

5. Use fiemiss

KM

13 TO 2018

methods for

Method o

l Re‐runnin

Soil samplof exchan

Method o

Measured

Depositioexceedanc

Soil sampl

S deposition

hod for this ceedance) wtes, base cat

g the magnition is reachal load exceethe magnitution; ALPUFF to etargets (redhe SSMB modance undee Steps 2 antion (see exanalised CALPion reductio

P SO2 ENVIR

calculating th

overview

g the critical

ling and modgeable cation

overview

d from soil sam

n monitoring ce in study ar

ling, laborato

n and critica

indicator is dwill be re‐calction depositi

tude of emied for this Kedance is exude of excee

explore diffeuced magnitodel to deterr revised ded 3 as necesample in FigPUFF scenaron (options,

RONMENTAL

he KPI and inf

load model in

elling studiesn pools (Ca, M

mples (if >5%

as describedrea)

ory analysis

al load (CL) e

described inculated in 20on and revis

ssions reducKPI: pressed in tedance is equ

rent emissiotude / areal rmine the exposition frossary to achigure 5); rio to informamounts an

EFFECTS MO

formative ind

n 2017

s to assess theMg, K, Na), usi

% exceedance

d in Section 2

exceedance

n Section 2. C017, adding sed critical li

ctions neede

he same uniuivalent to t

on scenariosexceedancexpected magm Step 2; ieve the req

m decisions od timelines

ONITORING (

dicator for soi

e rate of chaning all availab

in study area

and soil samp

risk

Critical load weathering imits.

ed if the thre

it as sulphurthe required

s for reducine); gnitude and

uired level o

on facility‐bapresented in

EEM) PROG

ils.

nge in magnitble data sourc

a)

ples (if >5%

exceedancerate data fr

eshold for

r deposition;d deposition

g deposition

areal extent

of exceedanc

ased SO2 n Section 8).

GRAM

23

tude ces

e (and rom

; as

n to

t of

ce

.

PROGRAM

Figure 5. E

5.2.2 Lo

Sampling

Sampling

PLAN FOR 20

6. Impledescri

7. Develdetermrecov

Example showscenariocritical l

ong‐term so

g locations: Sites to bsites; variThe Haislasites.

g duration anSampling interval a

KM

13 TO 2018

ment the chibed in Sectiop revised mmine if the rery of soil co

wing iterativeo, revised mooad exceedan

oil acidificati

e determineability of soa First Natio

nd frequencat 3 plots, et 3 years, i.e

P SO2 ENVIR

hosen methoon 8. monitoring arevised emisonditions.

e cycle of critidelled deposnce

ion attributa

ed in consultils will detern will be inv

y, and essenevery 5 yearse. 2015, 2018

RONMENTAL

ods of facility

and modellinssions and de

ical load exceition based o

able to S dep

tation with Mrmine the nuvited to parti

ntial years ans (with the e8, 2023, 202

EFFECTS MO

y‐based miti

ng plan for peposition re

eedance, sulpon emissions s

position

MOE, in longumber of samicipate in th

nd times: exception of 28, 2033, 203

ONITORING (

igation as pe

post‐mitigatisult in the a

hur emissionscenario, and

g term forestmples. e selection o

the first re‐38, etc.).

EEM) PROG

er process

on period tonticipated

s reduction d revised (red

t productivit

of soil sampl

sampling

GRAM

24

o

uced)

ty

ling

PROGRAM

Sampling

How and

Steps forfacility‐b

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5.2.3 M

Sampling

How and

PLAN FOR 20

g methods: To be det

d when moniTo be det

r determininased mitigat. Use a dynto reach a

. Use CALPtarget loa

. Run the dunder rev

. Iterate Stthreshold

. Use CALP(options,

. Implemenin Section

. Continue depositio

Magnitude oand time

g location, anNo additioassessmeweatherin

d when the aIf exceedain 2017 (i“atmosph(all three exchangeusing an usolution aspectrom

KM

13 TO 2018

termined in c

itoring data termined in c

g the magnition is reachnamic modela desired soiUFF to expload; dynamic modvised depositeps 2 and 3 ds for loss in UFF scenarioamounts annt the chosen 8. monitoring n results in t

of exchangeto depletion

nd timing, fronal samplinnt, and the sng rate (as d

analyses will ance is pred.e., the receheric S deposlayers from able calciumunbuffered aare shaken foetry or indu

P SO2 ENVIR

consultation

will be evaluconsultation

tude of emied for this Kl to define a il chemistry ore different

del to prediction from Stas necessaryexchangeabo that emergd timelines

en methods o

soil plots (5 the expected

eable cationn of these po

requency anng; we will usupplementdescribed be

be conducteicted for >5%ptor‐based sition and CLthe relevan

m (Ca2+), magammonium or 2 hours actively coup

RONMENTAL

n with BC MO

uated: n with BC MO

ssions reducKPI: target depowithin a spet scenarios f

ct timeline oep 2; y to stay belble cation poges from Stepresented inof facility‐ba

year internad chemical c

pools (Ca, ools

d duration:use the sampal soil colleclow).

ed: % of the studmitigation thL exceedanct site compognesium (Mgchloride extnd filtered),pled plasma

EFFECTS MO

OE.

OE.

ctions neede

osition load, ecified timeffor reducing

of recovery in

low the magools; ep 4 to inforn Section 8);ased mitigati

als) to deterchange.

Mg, K, Na)

ples obtainected for dete

dy area in thhreshold is rce risk” KPI), osite sampleg2+), potassitraction (soil using flameoptical emis

ONITORING (

ed if the thre

i.e., the depframe; deposition t

n exchangea

gnitude and

rm facility‐ba; ion as per pr

rmine if the

) compared

d for the SOermining the

he analyses treached for then archiv

es) will be anum (K+), sod samples ane atomic adsssion spectro

EEM) PROG

eshold for

position requ

to meet the

able cation p

timeline

ased mitigat

rocess descr

reduced

to S depos

O2 technical e base cation

to be complthe ved soil sampnalysed for dium and (Nand extractionsorption ometry.

GRAM

25

uired

pools

tion

ribed

ition,

n

eted

ples

a+) n

PROGRAM

5.2.4 B

Spatial vaload calcpotentiatechnicalregions ta result, Sampling

Sampling

PLAN FOR 20

The magnestimate [ANNUAL EXand an ex

Base cation w

ariability in wulations. Sitlly vulnerabll assessmenthat were nothere are da

g locations: Locationsco‐locate(2) calc‐althat werechange coexceedanbedrock iregion recarea); andSpecific si

g timing, freqSampling Sampling sampling

KM

13 TO 2018

nitude of excthe time to XCEEDANCE]]. xceedance of

weathering r

weathering es within thle (i.e. criticat survey thaot consideredata gaps with

s associated d with lakeslkaline bedroe based on eonclusion of nce as such sn the unsamceiving high d (4) surficiaites to be de

quency and will be condmay also be(described i

P SO2 ENVIR

changeable cdeplete the For examplf 10 meq/m

rates

rates of basee study areaal loads mayt were in ared during theh respect to

with: (1) qua that had veock near thextrapolationhigh exceedite estimate

mpled southemodelled S l geologies netermined in

duration: ducted durine carried outn Section 6)

RONMENTAL

cation poolsbase cation e, a soil with2/yr would b

e cations is aa were identy be exceedeeas with lowe initial site sthe base ca

artz diorite bery low base e smelter to n from otherdance; howees are warranern portion odeposition (not represenn consultatio

ng the summt to take adv.

EFFECTS MO

s will be com pool. (I.e., [h a base catibe exhausted

a source of utified in the Sed); (2) soils w base cationselection inction weathe

bedrock soucation concsupport curr sites (loweever this is thnted); (3) orof the study (southwestented in the ion with MOE

mer of 2015 ivantage of sy

ONITORING (

mpared to S d[[TOTAL POOL Oion pool of 1d in 100 yea

uncertainty fSTAR either not sampledn concentratcluding glacioering rates fo

uth of Lakelscentrations (rrent weather priority as he only regiorthogneiss m domain conern portion onitial soil samE and Rio Tin

in a single fieynergies wit

EEM) PROG

deposition toOF BASE CATIO

1,000 meq/mrs.)

for all criticaas: (1) d during thetion lakes; oofluvial soilsor these regi

e Lake, spathighest prioering estimathis is unlikeon showing metamorphicnsistent withof the study mpling. nto Alcan.

eld campaigh water

GRAM

26

o NS] / m2

al

e SO2 or (3) s. As ions.

ially ority); tes ely to

c h the

n.

PROGRAM

Sampling

How and

PLAN FOR 20

g methods: Soil sampcategorieAll field mmaximumdepths: 0combinedLaboratormoisture Compositanalysed

d when moniData collesites and weatherindigitally arates base

KM

13 TO 2018

pling; maxims.

measuremenm of five soil to 10 cm; 1d into one cory analyses fcontent, bute soil samplfor qualitati

itoring data ected in 201revise the reng rate may available anded on surfici

P SO2 ENVIR

um of 12–18

ts will followpits per sup5 to 25 cm, omposite samfor pH, loss‐olk density. es for each sve mineralo

will be evalu5 will be useegional criticbe revised td if deemed ial geology c

RONMENTAL

8 sites divide

w the 2012 ppplemental sand 40 to 50mple for eacon‐ignition (

site to be anogy.

uated: ed to estimacal load and to incorporaappropriatecategories).

EFFECTS MO

ed equally b

protocol desstudy region 0 cm). Sampch depth. (LOI), particl

nalysed for m

te weatheriexceedancete informatie (e.g., could

ONITORING (

between the

scribed the Ssampled fro

ples from eac

e size (sand,

major oxides

ng rates for e maps in 20ion on surfic post‐stratif

EEM) PROG

three bedro

STAR (with om three fixch pit will be

, silt and clay

s, and subset

the new sam017. The newcial geology fy weatherin

GRAM

27

ock

ed e

y),

t

mple w if ng

P

5

T

Topic

Steadmodel

Time tbase c(only iCL ex5% of Reviewselectratio

1

PROGRAM PLAN FO

5.2.5 Summar

Table 13. Schedu

c

y state soil lling

to depletion of cation pools if triggered by

xceedance > f study area) w critical limit tion: Bc:Al

Obtamap

14 A higher Bc:Al ra

OR 2013 TO 2018

ry of Soils action

le of work on the

2013

–

–

in digitized vegetation from VRI

tio results in a low

ns, 2013‐2018

e soils componen

2014

Rio Tinto Alcan/MOcollaboration on destudy design for thicomponent. Obtain digitized surgeology map from BMOE; overlay with sampled soil sites. Undertake a sensitanalysis of STAR predictions under mchemical criterion (Ca:Al, pH, Al).

–

Collaboration with Mappropriate critical soils, Bc:Al ratio, byvegetation type (couse of BEC zones treasonable dominaspecies boundaries

wer CL, and a greate

t of the EEM Prog

OE/QP etails of s

rficial BC 2012

ivity

multiple Bc:Al,

Develop wapproach fwhether chexceedanccausally reConduct asampling t(QD bedrosensitive laLakelse Laroad; CA bsmelter; OSW part offilling any ifor glaciofl

MOE on limit for y

onsider to derive

ant s).14

er chance of exceed

KMP SO2 E

gram.

2015

weight-of-evidence for assessing hange in CL ce (if predicted) is elated to KMP. additional soil to fill data gaps ock type in ake areas S of ake accessible by bedrock type near

OG bedrock type in f region; and important gaps uvial landforms).

–

–

dance. A sensitivity

ENVIRONMENTA

2016

–

–

–

y study could be do

AL EFFECTS MON

2017

Re-do analysis foexceedance (andwith CL exceedandata from the newIncorporate Bc devalues from Lakemonitoring and relimits. Include a sanalysis of multipcriterion. Also caleffects domain de7.5 kg/ha/yr S deisopleth, to compusing the originaldomain area. Analyze 2012 andetermine base cexchangeable poinput to the 2017 the first Soils rowIncorporate any cBc:Al ratio into remodelling (the 20in the first Soils ro

one on CLs given va

NITORING (EEM)

7

or risk of CL d % of area nce), adding w sites. eposition else evised critical sensitivity ple chemical lculate for an efined by the

eposition pare with l study

Re-anrequireanalys

d new soil to cation ools (as an analysis in

w). changes in evised 017 analysis ow).

arious ratios.

) PROGRAM

28

2018

alyse archived soils if ed based on results of sis in 2017

–

–

P

Topic

Permaplots

Repor

PROGRAM PLAN FO

c

anent soil

rting

OR 2013 TO 2018

2013

–

Annual reporting

2014

Annual reporting

Establishmcollaboratiinitial soil sanalysis. Develop wapproach fwhether a cation poo(if this occrelated to

Annu

KMP SO2 E

2015

ment of plots in on with BC MOE, sampling and

weight-of-evidence for assessing change in base

ols in soil samples urs) is causally KMP.– ual reporting

ENVIRONMENTA

2016

–

Annual reporting

AL EFFECTS MON

2017

–

Annual rep

NITORING (EEM)

7

Re-samintervatherea

porting Annua

) PROGRAM

29

2018

mple plots (sampling al of 5 years after)

al reporting

PROGRAM

6.0 L

6.1 IN The KPI fdeterminthe pH chdata anareceptor will be uscritical loaffected)mitigatiounfeasib Table 14.


Water chemistryacidificati

PLAN FOR 20

Lakes, St

NDICATORS A

for this recepne actual pHhange is in lalysis strategis predictionsed as inputoads. Results), and will guon is reachedle, facility‐ba

KPI and infor

nce Thresincre

y – ion

ObsepH ≥ belowpH lepre‐Kmoresensiotherinformindicameth

Actiofrequsampsubsemoreestimvariaotherindicafall inApprfrequdeterstatisanaly

KM

13 TO 2018

treams a

AND THRESH

ptor is obser change in laakes expectey is describen‐based: mes for updates will reveal uide where sd and receptased mitigat

rmative indica

shold for ased monitor

erved decreas 0.30 pH unitw mean baselevel measuredKMP in one ore of the 7 acidtive lakes, anr evidence (semative ators and hods)

on: increase uency of fall pling in equent year, e accurately mate mean anbility of pH anr informative ators during tndex period. opriate sampuency to be rmined by stical power ysis.

P SO2 ENVIR

and Aqu

OLDS

rvation‐baseakes. Resultsed to be affeed in detail ineasured wateed modeling the extent osampling shotor‐based mition will be i

ators for surfa

ring Threshreceptmitigat

se in ts line d r d‐nd ee

to

nd nd

the

pling

More isamplidecrearelated0.30 pmean level pliming (see Aand I).

Actionto brinback upH, suapprovMOE/DimplemAppendescribsystemto a pieffort)

RONMENTAL

atic Biot

ed: water ches will reveal ected). The in Appendix er chemistryof critical lo

of expected iould occur. Iitigation is amplemented

ace water.

hold for tor‐based tion

intensive ing confirms aase causally d to KMP of >H units belowbaseline pH pre‐KMP and is feasible ppendices G

: pilot limingng the lake p to pre‐KMPbject to val by BC DFO prior to mentation (sendix I bing a matic approaclot liming

EFFECTS MO

ta

emistry datathe magnituntent and raH. The first iy data and moads, and eximpact (i.e. hf the KPI thrapplied but pd.

Threshofacility‐bmitigatio

a

> w

P

ee

ch

More thalakes ratMedium(based orelative lrating; AD) with dcausally to KMP opH unitsmeasurebaseline KMP (priliming)

Action: reductioemission

ONITORING (

a will be tracude of impacationale of tinformative measured S dpected excehow many lareshold for rproves ineffe

ld for based on

Injo

an 2 ted m or High on lake Appendix decrease related of > 0.30 below ed pre‐ior to

on in SO2 ns

- Ade

- A

ass

(

- dc

eSS

EEM) PROG

cked to ct (i.e. how lhe samplingindicator fodeposition deedance of thakes might breceptor‐basective or


Atmospheric deposition anexceedance r

Aquatic biotapresence / absence per species on sensitive lakeLake ratings (Appendix D)

Evidence thatdecrease is causally relatKMP SO2 emissions: ANSO4, DOC (seeSection 7)

GRAM

30

large g and r this ata hose be sed

be ered

S nd CL risk

a: fish

es

t pH

ted to

NC, e

PROGRAM


Atmosphedepositioexceedan

Predictedstate pH vcurrent pH

Estimatesnatural vain pH andindicators

Evidence decrease related toemissions

15 Threshomagnitud

16 The 10 sshowing As shownthat othecomplete

PLAN FOR 20

ve s

eric S n and CL ce risk

steady versus H

s of ariability other s

Iftwdfmo

that pH is causally o KMP SO2 s

lds for mitigatide, extent and

ampled lakes icritical exceedn in Table 16, ter sampled laked to confirm o

KM

13 TO 2018

Threshold fo

CL exceeded sensitive lakehaving eitherpredicted to pH units (Figthe monitoriidentified lakexceedance

Seven lakes w‐0.10 units arlakes that areOctober. Lak(MOE‐3 and sampled in Oto this set of depending onbased on samand 2014 (M

f the fall indehreshold for will then obtaduring the falfollowing yearmean index vaof pH and oth

Used in applithresholds

ion are not app causes of lake

in Figure 6 withdance during a the critical loades will show exor reject this ex

P SO2 ENVIR

r increased m

in more thanes identified ir CL exceedanacidify by moure 6)16. Actng to include kes with pred

with predictere included ine monitored aes recommenMOE‐6, the foOct 2013) couannually monn the outcommpling in 2013OE‐6).

ex sample is bany lake, theain four cheml index periodr to better esalue and natuer parameter

ication of all t

plicable. Thesee acidification (

h either CL excsensitivity anad analysis will bxceedance undxpectation.

RONMENTAL

monitoring15

n the 10 acid‐n the STAR asnce or ore than 0.1 tion: expand newly icted

d pH change n the set of annually eachnded by MOEormer ld be added nitored lakes

me of analyses3 (MOE‐3)

below the pH EEM Programistry samplesd of the timate the ural variabilityrs.

three KPI

e indicators wil(Appendix H an

ceedance or pralysis in which be repeated inder KMP alone,

EFFECTS MO

Indicator

s - Predictecurrent pH unitshigher tpH units

- Water c

>

h E

s

- Surface describeal. (201

m s

y

- Baselinevariabiliduring fLake (01Section

- These ewhetheother inthe rang

- Trends aSO4 dep

- Trends aNO3, Cl lakes anlakes

- See SecAppend

ll provide weignd Section 7).

redicted pH >KMP deposition 2019 using be, but the 2019

ONITORING (

rs to be joint

ed steady stapH (if predics then level othan if predics)

chemistry – a

water modeed in Section 3)

e estimates oity in pH and from End Lak12) and West6.2

estimates will er observed pndicators) arege of natural

and levels of position, N de

and levels of and DOC in bnd across all 7

ction 7, also Sdix H

ght of evidence

> ‐0.1 units weron was doubledetter informati modelling ana

EEM) PROG

ly considered

te pH versus ted change >of concern is ted change <

cidification

l inputs, as 8.6.3.4 of ES

of natural other indicate (006), Littlet Lake (023) –

be used to aH values (ande within or ouvariability

SO2 emissioneposition;

lake ANC, SOboth individua7 acid‐sensitiv

ection 6.2 an

e for assessing

re the same 10d (STAR, pg. 33ion. It is unlikealysis will be

GRAM

31

d

0.1

0.1

SA et

tors e End – see

ssess d utside

ns,

O4, al ve

d

the

0 lakes 30). ly

PROGRAM


Aquatic bpresence per speciesensitive

Lake ratin(Appendix

Episodic p

Amphibia

6.2 M Table 15.

Key perfoindicator

Water cheacidificati


Atmosphedepositioexceedan

Fish preseabsence pspecies onlakes

Episodic p

Amphibia

PLAN FOR 20

ve s

iota: fish / absence es on lakes

ngs x D)

pH change

ns

METHODS

Overview of

ormance

emistry ‐ ion

ve s

eric S n and CL ce risk

ence / per n sensitive

pH change

ns

KM

13 TO 2018

Threshold fo

Decrease in pby more inteindex period

Action: resamlakes that canfish sampling

Not applicabreceptor‐basbased mitiga

Not applicab

Not applicab

methods for

Method over

Water qualityanalyses to dexceeded (se

Method over

In 2014 re‐rufor the 10 laksampling).

In 2019 re‐ruall sampled lamodel with t

Fish samplingmesh nets

Continuous p

Support of co

P SO2 ENVIR

r increased m

pH ≥0.30 unitnsive samplin

mple the fish n be safely acg

le. Used in thed mitigationtion

le

le

calculating th

rview

y sampling todetect water qee Section 6.2

rview

un the Steady kes sampled i

un the SSWC aakes (those sahe new atmo

g from standa

pH measurem

ommunity ba

RONMENTAL

monitoring15

ts confirmed ng in the fall

community inccessed for

hresholds for n and source‐

he KPI and inf

o assess trendquality trends2, Section 7, a

State Water n both 2012

and ESSA‐DFOampled from ospheric S dep

ard overnight

ment in Ander

sed groups co

EFFECTS MO

Indicator

n

- none

‐- none

- none

- Atmosp

formative ind

ds in ANC, pH,s and whetheand Appendix

Chemistry (Sand 2013 (to

O models bas 2012 to 2018position data

t gill net sets

rson Creek

onducting am

ONITORING (

rs to be joint

pheric S depos

dicators for su

, SO4, base caer thresholds x H, especially

SSWC) and ESassess fall vs

sed on water 8), and then r

using RIC (19

mphibian mon

EEM) PROG

ly considered

sition

urface water.

ations. Variouhave been y Table 27).

SA‐DFO mods. summer

chemistry dare‐run the CL

97) nets and

nitoring

GRAM

32

d

us

els

ta for L

small

PROGRAM

6.2.1 W

Ten lakesthese lak [HC03

‐]*[Mg2+], [N

and mag

cations / depositiowater saexchangetoxicity otitrationsANC and Samplingoxygen m We will aand dura

17 Ions with18 All of thedetermin

PLAN FOR 20

Water chemi

s are sensitivkes (describe, [CO3

2‐]*, [SNa+], [K+], [N

nitude of ch

SO4) for ton‐predictedmples by exe H+ for otheof water to fs, which will SO4.

g will also incmight explain

also performation of acidi

h * are calculatese measuremning if the chan

KM

13 TO 2018

istry – acidif

ve to acidificed below) anSO4

2‐], [OH‐]*NH4

+], [H+], d

anges in lak

he Steady‐Sd change in Samining chaer cations suish. Lake‐speprovide the

clude field mn pH shifts),

m intensive mic episodes i

ted from otherents are imponges are causa

P SO2 ENVIR

fication, and

cation (Figurnd laborator*, DOC, Totadissolved Al).

ke chemistry

tate Water CSO4, ANC anarge balanceuch as Ca, Mecific titratioe information

measuremenand total di

monitoring on this stream

r measurementrtant for undelly related to K

RONMENTAL

d episodic pH

re 6). This KPy analyses oal Alkalinity, .17,18 These i

, estimate a

Chemistry ad pH vs obse. Ion exchan

Mg, Na, K, Al.on curves win base for de

nts of tempessolved solid

f Anderson Cm.

ts. rstanding why KMP (as describ

EFFECTS MO

H change

PI will includof major anioGran ANC), ons are nee

key parame

nd ESSA/DFOerved changnge processeDissolved Aill be obtaineeveloping la

erature, dissods.

Creek to ass

pH is changingbed in Section

ONITORING (

de water samons ([Cl‐], [F‐

major cationded to asses

eter (F‐facto

O models, coge, and confies in the watAl is also an ied from the ke‐specific t

olved oxyge

sess frequen

g, which is imp7).

EEM) PROG

mpling in 7 o], [NO3

‐], ns ([Ca2+], ss the form,

r = base ompare rm QA/QC otershed can ndicator of Gran ANC thresholds fo

n (e.g., very

ncy, magnitu

portant for

GRAM

33

f

rate

of

or

low

de

PROGRAM

Figure 6. C

Intent an Sampling

19Three othLAK056),lake not (Append

20 Site MOcontinuo2014.

p

PLAN FOR 20

Conceptual dconsideexperien

nd rationale

g locations:

Essential LAK006 (EFive of thE).19 Two lakesThree inseLAK034). respective

significanreference

her lakes with , are low prioriaccessible by fix E). E‐3 was samplous fog at that

Lakes with

Lakes with oripH > 6

Lakes with oripH < 6

KM

13 TO 2018

iagram of critred vulnerabnce a pH decr

of the samp

locations: 7 End Lake), LAese 7 lakes a

s recommenensitive lakeThe insensitely), do not

tly (predictee for biologic

CL exceedancety for samplingfish; LAK054 an

ed in October high elevation

current pH <

015

iginal

iginal

P SO2 ENVIR

teria for lake le, because itrease or a crit

pling strategy

vulnerable lAK023 (Westalso show cr

nded by MOEes to be samtive lakes hahave exceed

ed pH=0.0, cal changes,

e are predictedg, and are not nd LAK056 are

2013. Site MO, which preven

6

Lakes with prepH >

04

05405

006 (En

023 (W028, 04

022

012

RONMENTAL

vulnerabilityts original pH tical load exc

y: Please see

lakes with pt Lake), LAK0ritical load ex

E (MOE‐3 anpled for cheve higher Grdance of the

‐0.07, 0.03 rthe insensit

d to have a pH included in thenaturally acidi

E‐6 could not bnted helicopter

L

edicted future > 0.1 pH units

7

46

nd Lk)

West Lk)42, 044

EFFECTS MO

y. Lake 15 is thwas below 6eedance.

e Appendix H

redicted pH 028, LAK042xceedance (

nd MOE‐620).emistry and fran ANC valueir CLs, and a

respectivelytive lakes wi

change < 0.1 pe current field ic, low pH lake

be safely sampr access. . MOE

Lakes with predof their C

change in

ONITORING (

he only one in.0 and it is no

H for a detai

> 0.10. Th2, LAK044, LA(map provide

. fish (LAK007ues (1438, 6are not pred

y). In additioll provide a c

pH units (LAK0program. LAK0

es dominated b

pled in OctobeE‐6 will be sam

dicted exceedaCritical Load

EEM) PROG

n the diagramot expected to

iled descript

hese includeAK012, LAK0ed in Appen

7, LAK016, 69, 99 µeq/l icted to acid

on to servingcheck on mo

047, LAK054, 047 is a high aby organic acid

r 2013 due to mpled in Octob

ance

GRAM

34

m not o

tion.

e: 022. dix

dify

g as a odel

lpine s

er

PROGRAM

Sampling

PLAN FOR 20

predictionoccur in 2Lakelse LapredictedCecil Creemirrors thHydrologiassess its Kitimat Rimetals); ethe intakeAndersonepisodes)

g timing, freqThe watedata fromand MOE‐variabilityduring thein their chTo undersinsensitivseasonal tsulphate aand ANC)emissionsboth inde(greater sIn 2014, wto acidificthe set ofcalculatedthe fall ofnot have Andersonramp up bKitimat Riin 2015 to

KM

13 TO 2018

ns for less ac2014. ake, given itsd to be insenek (outlet of hat of West ic, fish habitconnectivityiver (to assueither upstree. n Creek (pH m).

quency and r chemistry

m the sites th‐6) will be usy of CL (Augue fall when lhemistry (prstand chronie lakes will btimeframe aand changes, and to be as are likely toependently astatistical powe will detercation. If “nof vulnerable d for MOE‐3f 2013 (168 aCL exceedann Creek: contbaseline. iver: monthlo evaluate a

P SO2 ENVIR

cid‐sensitive

s importancsitive to SO2

West Lake)Lake. at and chemy to Lake 02re that wateeam of the in

measuremen

duration: of all of theshat were samsed to showust 2012 verakes are weeferably in Oic or long tebe sampled as in 2013 (i.s in other ionable to demoo occur in thand also as power) with rermine if theo”, sampling lakes sampl, the Gran Aand 138 µeqnce. See foottinuous pH s

ly water quany changes i

RONMENTAL

e lakes. Fish

e and profile

2 emissions fwas sample

mical reconn8, and its seer supply is nntake for the

nts to assess

se lakes wasmpled in 201w the combinsus Octoberell mixed, lesOctober). rm acidificatannually due., fall indexns as KMP raonstrate levhe early partpart of the coespect to its 2 MOE lakeswill be discoed annually.ANC and charq/l, respectivtnote on presampling, be

ality samplinin the qualit

EFFECTS MO

sampling fro

e in the Vallefrom KMP.ed in 2013, to

aissance samnsitivity to anot affectede Kitimat wa

s frequency

s sampled in 12 (all excepned effects or 2013). Futuss productive

tion, the 7 aring 2014 tox period) to tamps up (paveling‐off to st of 2014. Eaomplete set trends in ws have CL exontinued. If . While the Crge balance vely) stronglyevious page.eginning in fa

g, beginningty of drinking

ONITORING (

om the inse

ey, even tho

o check if its

mpling of Goacidificationd by low pH oater treatme

and magnitu

October 20t the streamof inter‐year ure samplinge and have g

cid‐sensitiveo 2018 durintrack any incarticularly desteady statech lake will of 7 acid‐seater chemistxceedance o“yes”, they CL has not yalkalinity my suggest th. all 2014 to g

g after KMP g water

EEM) PROG

nsitive lakes

ough it is

s chemistry

oose Creek, t. or elevated ent plant, or

ude of acidic

013. Chemicam sites, MOEand inter‐mg will occur greater stab

e lakes and 3g the same crease in ecreases in pe. Minimum be considereensitive lakestry over timr are vulnerawill be addeet been easurementhat MOE‐3 w

get a pre‐KM

commission

GRAM

35

s will

to

at

c

al ‐3,

month

ility

3

pH

ed s e. able ed to

ts in will

MP‐

ning

PROGRAM

Monitori

How and

21 It is not fhelicopter and best m

PLAN FOR 20

ng protocolsThe sametechnical

d when moniFor waterdifferencepre‐KMP 2014. FordifferenceKMP valuvalues. During 20estimate Little End

o A a fin vaco

o Fu20peac

Estimatesplus analybe used to

o Pro As

lak20

If the fall will then ofollowing parameteDuring thanalyzed

feasible to resatime needs to

metric for asses

KM

13 TO 2018

s and sample as for the sassessment

itoring data r quality paraes between values will br parameterses between es will be de

014 and 2015pre‐KMP na Lake (012) a

pilot test of field pH metSeptember

ariability in pover prevent

ull chemistry014 to assesseriodically unccess. s of natural vyses of Ontao: rovide estimssess statistikes and the 014 EEM repindex samplobtain moreyear to bett

ers.21 e period froto assess tre

ample a lake m be reserved wssing lake pH) w

P SO2 ENVIR

ing methodsampling don (ESSA et al.

will be evaluameters whsummer 201be defined ass which showsummer 201efined as the

5 (to be sumtural variabiand West La

continuous ter every tw2014 for a ppH during thets access); an

y samples wis baseline nantil August 2

variability frorio and U.S.

ates of natucal power tocomplete seport) le falls belowe frequent chter estimate

m Decembeends in both

more intensivelwell in advancewill not be imm

RONMENTAL

s: ne in 2012 fo 2013).

uated: ich show sta12 and fall 2s the mean owed no stati12 and fall 2e mean of su

mmarized in 2ility in pH anake (023) thr

pH monitoro weeks) wiperiod long ee pre‐KMP pnd

ll be obtaineatural variab2015, except

om 2013‐20lakes (Yan p

ural variabilito detect threet of 7 acid‐s

w the pH thrhemistry same the mean a

er to March o individual la

ly in the fall inde; and 2) measumediately avail

EFFECTS MO

or these par

atistically or 2013/2014 vaof the fall instically or bi2013 sampleummer 2012

2015 EEM rend other indrough the fo

rs (calibratedll record pH enough to pperiod (exce

ed four timebility during t during wint

014 intensivepers. comm;

ty for all lakeesholds of insensitive lak

reshold for amples duringand variabilit

of each yearakes and in t

dex period of turements of pHlable.

ONITORING (

rameters dur

biologically alues, the mdex samplesiologically sis, the mean 2, fall 2013 a

eport), the picators fromollowing step

d and cross‐c every 30 mrovide a relipt during wi

es during thethe index peter when ice

e sampling o; Stoddard e

es; and nterest for bes (to be sum

any lake, theg the same pty of pH and

r, monitoringthe overall p

the same year H from the lab

EEM) PROG

ring the SO2

significant mean baselins in 2013 angnificant baseline preand fall 2014

program willm End Lake (0ps:

checked againutes beginable baselininter when i

e fall samplineriod, and e cover prev

of 3 EEM laket al. 1996) w

oth individummarized in

e EEM Prograperiod of thed other

g data will bpopulation o

for two reasonb (the least vari

GRAM

36

e d

e‐4

l 006),

ainst nning ne of ce

ng in

vents

es, will

ual n

am e

be of 7

ns: 1) iable

PROGRAM

PLAN FOR 20

acid‐sensbullets Analyses

o Colak

o Deco

o Asva

o Exba

o Dese

Analyses insensitiv

o Ex17

o Copach

o Code

The data o Es

[S

o ExstasteCAeslik

o Esasnene

KM

13 TO 2018

itive lakes, a

of trends in ompare fall ike‐specific tetermine if ponsistent witssess whetheariability, as xamine the taseline etermine hoeven acid‐senof trends in e lakes: xamine distr7in Appendixonduct pairearameter in ehange for eaonduct trendetermine ovecollected frostimate expeO4] and app

xamine actuaate predictioeady state frALPUFF poststimates. Apkely causes o

stimate the Fssumed F‐faceutralizationeutralized an

P SO2 ENVIR

and in the 3

individual landex sampleitration curvpH thresholdth declines iner annual obestimated frrend in fall o

ow individuansitive lakesthe full set o

ibution of esx H) ed t‐test on peach year coch parameted analyses oerall trends om 2014 to 2ected time toroximate es

al SO4, ANons of exceerom the ESSt‐KMP predicply the approf acidificatio

F‐ factor fromctor. The F‐fn through catnd F=1 mean

RONMENTAL

insensitive l

akes: e to pH, ANCves Table 27ds exceededn ANC and inbservations arom 2014‐20observations

l lakes comp of seven acid

stimated cha

pH, ANC andompared to er n the complin pH, ANC a2018 will beo steady stattimates of w

C and pH foedance fromA/DFO modctions of SO4

roaches descon at each s

m base catactor is an etion exchangns that all ac

EFFECTS MO

akes, as exp

C and SO4 th); (KPI), and ifncreases in Sare within th015 samplins for each la

pare to patte

d‐sensitive l

anges in pH,

d SO4 to assebaseline per

ete set of acand SO4 (seee analyzed inte for SO4 bawater reside

r all lakes ov SSWC, predel, and expe

4 depositioncribed in Secite.

tions / SOestimate of wge, where F=cidity is neut

ONITORING (

plained in the

hresholds de

f reductions SO4 (informahe range of ng ke relative t

erns observe

akes and the

, ANC and SO

ess mean chariod, versus

cid‐sensitivee Section 7 an early 2019 ased on obsence time (Ta

ver time reladicted ANC aected lake [S / model‐baction 7 to de

4 and compawatershed a=0 means thtralized.

EEM) PROG

e following t

eveloped fro

in pH are ative indicatnatural

to the pre‐KM

ed in full set

e set of thre

O4 (see Figur

ange in eachthresholds o

e lakes to and Appendi to: erved trendable 25).

ative to steaand pH chanSO4] from sed runoff educe the m

are to the cid hat no acidity

GRAM

37

two

m

tors)

MP

of

ee

re

h of

x H)

s in

dy ge at

ost

y is

PROGRAM

Resampl

Assess frchange wstorms, fatmosphindicatioassessmeepisodesdetermin(i.e., orgaare showsnowmesamplingchangedthorough Steps forfacility‐b

PLAN FOR 20

ing of STAR

Re‐samplchange in

equency, mawith ramp‐upfirst flush aftere), and hon of acidic eent of the exs are detectene if these epanic acids, bwn to be relalt and/or falg in 2014‐201. These 3 EEh ‐ basis for c

r determininased mitigat

1. Deter2. Look a

STAR.3. Adapt4. Use th

reduc5. Use C

reduc6. Run C

expec7. Iterat

which8. Imple9. Contin

in the

KM

13 TO 2018

lakes:

ing of a subsn water chem

agnitude anp of KMP emter a long drow they relatpisodes in axtent and freed in Anderspisodes are ase cation dted to KMP,l storms in L15, and deteM lakes will change dete

g the magnition is reach

mine the levat actual che t models if rehe ESSA‐DFOtion in S depALPUFF to eing depositiCALPUFF outcted exceedae steps 5 anh meets requment the chnue monitor anticipated

P SO2 ENVIR

set of STAR smistry of the

d duration omissions, howy period in wte to toxicity single streaequency of aon Creek, threlated to Kdilution; Bish, then compLakes 012, 00ermine if thehave baseli

ection than A

tude of emied for this K

vel of pH andemical chang

equired baseO model andposition necexplore diffeon to meet tput throughance and pHd 6 until a sauired recovehosen methoring to deterd recovery of

RONMENTAL

study lakes m 10 lakes oc

of acidic episw they relatewhich sulphay thresholdsam close to tacidic episodhen sample oMP (i.e., SO4hop et al. 200lete intensiv06 and 023 te frequency ne chemistryAnderson Cr

ssions reducKPI:

d ANC recovge versus the

ed on observd SSWC sensiessary to acrent scenaritarget (optio the ESSA‐D change witatisfactory rry of pH andods of facilityrmine if the f pH and ANC

EFFECTS MO

may occur ifcurs.

sodes in Ande to climaticate gases mis for biota. Athe smelter, des across thother ions in4‐driven) or00). If the epve sampling to compare and magnituy informatioeek.

ctions neede

very requirede predicted

vations (e.g.itivity analyshieve the reios of facilityons describeDFO and SSWh the revisedreduction in d ANC identiy‐based mitirevised emisC.

ONITORING (

f a greater th

derson Creekc factors (e.gight have buAnderson Crebut does no

he study aren Anderson Cr factors unrepisodes in Anof lake outleto baseline ude of acidicon that prov

ed if the thre

d in each acichemical ch

., change theses to determequired pH ry‐based mitied in SectionWC models tod depositiondeposition iified in Step igation. ssions and d

EEM) PROG

han predicte

k, how theseg., snowmeltuilt up in theeek providesot provide ana. If acidic Creek to elated to KMnderson Creets during intensive c episodes hide a more

eshold for

id‐sensitive hange in the

e F factor).mine the tarecovery. gation for n 8). o determine n from Step is determine1.

deposition re

GRAM

38

ed

e t, s an n

MP eek

as

lake.

rget

the 5. ed

esult

PROGRAM

6.2.2 A

The monexceedan The assuextent of

Sampling

Sampling

Monitori

How and

PLAN FOR 20

Atmospheric

itoring methnce (and % o

mptions in df CL exceeda

AtmospheBase catioWater che[Mg2+], [Norganic anANC is estdetection

g locations: As describ

g timing, freqAs describAs describAs describKitimat Risampling a steady s

ng protocolsAs describAs describAs describ

d when moniThe acidifthe sampCLs will be(August 2productivlake chem

KM

13 TO 2018

S deposition

hod for this of study area

deposition aance. Testineric S deposon depositioemistry – acNa+], [K+], [Nnions (commtimated by tn total alkalin

bed below, f

quency and bed in Sectiobed in Sectiobed below, fiver: monthlfrequency bstate?)

s and samplbed in Sectiobed in Sectiobed below, f

itoring data fication modling describee recalculate2012 comparve in the fall mistry (Lande

P SO2 ENVIR

n and critica

informative a lakes with

nd surface wg these assuition (descrion (describedcidification (dH4

+], [H+], dimonly represthree differenity, Gran AN

for Water ch

duration on 2, for Atmon 5, for Basfor Water chly water sambased on obs

ing methodson 2, for Atmon 5, for Basfor Water ch

will be evaludels will be red above. ed in 2014 tored with Octindex perioders et al. 198

RONMENTAL

al load (CL) e

indicator is CL exceedan

water modelumptions wilbed in Sectiod in Section described bessolved Al) asented as[A‐

ent measureNC and char

hemistry – ac

mospheric S se cation (Bchemistry – acmpling, for twserved chang

s: mospheric S se cation dephemistry – ac

uated: e‐run in 201

o assess thetober 2013).d, leading to87).

EFFECTS MO

exceedance

described innce) will be r

ls affect predll require theon 2) 5) elow), specifand acidic an‐]), ANC, DOCs to providerge balance a

cidification

depositionc) depositioncidification wo years afteges (i.e., doe

depositionposition cidification

19 with the l

effects of sa Lakes are bo less spatial

ONITORING (

risk

n Section 2. re‐calculate

dictions of me following i

fically majornions ([SO4

2

C) e redundancyalkalinity (He

n

er KMP startes it appear

atest input p

ampling on dbetter mixed and tempo

EEM) PROG

Critical load d in 2019.

magnitude ainputs:

r cations ([Ca‐], [NO3

‐],

y in trend emond 1990

tup; then reto have reac

parameters

different da and less ral variabilit

GRAM

39

nd

a2+],

0)

visit ched

from

tes

ty in

PROGRAM

6.2.3 A

Sampling

Sampling

Monitori

How and

22 LAK006 a

PLAN FOR 20

Aquatic biota

g locations: In safely aLAK006 (ELAK007, L

g timing, freqThe four vcoinciden3 referenThe 3 refemeasurem

ng protocolsGill net sadescribedinformatiestimatestime, cau

d when moniData will vulnerablinclude:

o Pro Mo Fr

fiso Wo Leo Sim

cosiz

and LAK012 ar

KM

13 TO 2018

a: fish prese

accessible laEnd Lake), LALAK016 and

quency and vulnerable lant with watece lakes, in perence lakesment.

s and samplampling for fd in Appendion on fish ps of fish denssing unaccep

itoring data be used to ce lakes that

resence/abseean and varequency dissh are caugh

Weight‐lengthength at age mple index oomplex diverzes permit

re connected, a

P SO2 ENVIR

nce / absen

kes, which wAK01222 andLAK034 (ma

duration: akes were sar sampling. Ipreparation s will be sam

ing methodsfish using RICx E). These mresence / absity are not fptable levels

will be evaluclarify for thecould be saf

ence by specriance of lengstributions oht h plots and eplots for eaof species ricrsity index (e

and fish can ea

RONMENTAL

ce per speci

will include 4d LAK044 (Finp provided i

ampled in thIn 2013 we afor sampling

mpled in 2015

s: C (RIC 1997)methods arebsence and ffeasible, as ts of fish mor

uated: e public the fely accesse

cies, and by gth and weigf lengths for

equations foch species ochness (e.g.,effective spe

asily move back

EFFECTS MO

ies on sensit

4 vulnerablenlay Lake); ain Appendix

he fall of 201also obtaineg these the f5, to provide

) and small me sufficient tfish age / lenthey would rrtality.

fish commud for fish sa

age ght for eachr each specie

or each speciof salmonids , number of ecies richnes

k and forth bet

ONITORING (

tive lakes

e: LAK023 (Wand the 3 refE).

13, prior to Ked access infofollowing yee a baseline

mesh nets (mo provide rength distriburequire muc

unities presempling. Ana

h species by es if sufficien

ies where sa where samspecies causs as in Jost 2

tween them.

EEM) PROG

West Lake), ference lake

KMP start‐upormation foear. for future

method eliable utions. Accurch more gill n

ent in each olyses will

age class nt numbers

ample sizes aple sizes perght) and a m2006) if sam

GRAM

40

s:

p, r the

rate net

of the

of

allow rmit more mple

PROGRAM

6.2.4 A

Support wamphibiawill be usairshed.

PLAN FOR 20

Amphibians

will be provians in the Tesed to help i

KM

13 TO 2018

ided to existerrace–Kitimnform the u

P SO2 ENVIR

ting local commat valley. Inunderstandin

RONMENTAL

mmunity groformation gng of the hea

EFFECTS MO

oups who coenerated froalth of the e

ONITORING (

onduct annuom amphibiaenvironment

EEM) PROG

ual monitorinan monitorit within the

GRAM

41

ng of ng

P

6

T

TopicSteadmodel

Chembody s

[SO4]0

Fish pabsen

Episodacidifi

Amph

Repor

PROGRAM PLAN FO

6.2.5 Summar

Table 16. Schedu

c y state water lling

mistry: water sampling

Annuand lasamp

0; F-factor

presence / nce sampling

Samplakes

dic cation

ibians

rting Annu

OR 2013 TO 2018

ry of Lakes, Stre

le of work on the

2013 –

ual water sampling aboratory analysis; ple Cecil Creek.

–

pling of 4 vulnerable s.

–

–

ual reporting

eams and Aqua

e surface water co

2014 Re-run acidification mcalculate CLs, to asseeffects of sampling in (2012) versus Oct (20Annual water samplinlaboratory analysis. More intensive sampllakes to determine navariability. Develop weight-of-eviapproach for assessinwhether chemical chacausally related to KM(Section 7 of this docu

–

Reconnaissance of hand water chemistry iCreek – future samplibased on results. Initiate study design fomelt and fall storm epacidification in AndersCreek near KMP (gaustream). Examine 199data for Anderson Crepossible baseline. Initiate discussion withinterested party.

Annual reporting

tic Biota action

omponent of the

models to ess the Aug 013). g and

ing of 3 atural

idence ng ange is MP ument).

Annual walaboratory data evalu

habitat n Goose ng TBD

Sampling olakes. Reschange rea

or snow pisodic son uged 97 pH eek as

Finalize st

h Provide sulocal commwho conduamphibianAnnual rep

KMP SO2 E

ns, 2013‐2018

e EEM Program.

2015 –

ater sampling, analysis, and

uation.

Alada

–

of the 3 reference sample if lake pH aches threshold.

Rch

udy design. Im

upport to existing munity groups uct annual n monitoring.

Plowa

porting A

NVIRONMENTAL

2016 –

Annual water sampling aaboratory analysis, and ata evaluation.

–

Resample if lake pH hange reaches thresho

mplement study.

Provide support to existiocal community groups who conduct annual mphibian monitoring.

Annual reporting

L EFFECTS MONIT

201–

and

Annual water salaboratory analydata evaluation

–

old. Resample if lakchange reaches

–

ing

Provide supporlocal communitwho conduct anamphibian monAnnual reportin

TORING (EEM)

7 Organ

acidificre-run CLs an

ampling and ysis, and

n.

Annualaboradata esamplibased data e

Reducthese fchemisdepos([SO4]

ke pH s threshold.

Resamchang

Implem

rt to existing ty groups nnual nitoring.

Providlocal cwho coamphi

ng Annua

PROGRAM

42

2018 ize all data so that cation models can be in 2019 to calculate nd exceedance. al water sampling and tory analysis, and valuation. Review ing requirements on outcomes of the valuation.

ce the uncertainties of factors based on lake stry (F) and review of ition estimates ]o. mple if lake pH e reaches threshold.

ment study.

de support to existing community groups onduct annual bian monitoring.

al reporting

PROGRAM

7.0 D

The KPI texceedansummarifor increa Atmosph

Ine

Visible V

AinSO

Atmosph

AKo

Rex

Long‐ter

Coo

Aaso

Atmosph

AKo

Rex

PLAN FOR 20

Determin

thresholds pnces are cauzed below, based monito

heric SO2 Co

nvestigate eastimates of

Vegetation In

Assess ambienjury to foliaO2) and estim

heric S Depo

Assess the reMP alone; 2ther sources

e‐evaluate uxceedances

m Soil Acidi

onduct an ebserved basf the study a

Assess the relone; 2) cumources; or 3)

heric S Depo

Assess the reMP alone; 2ther sources

e‐evaluate uxceedances.

KM

13 TO 2018

nation o

resented in usally relatedby KPI. Thesoring or mod

ncentration

ach 1‐hour eKMP SO2 em

njury

ent SO2 concage (i.e., assemates of KM

osition and C

lative likelih2) cumulatives; or 3) cumu

uncertainties

fication Attr

xtended soise cation lossarea.

lative likelihmulative effe) cumulative

osition and C

lative likelih2) cumulatives; or 3) cumu

uncertainties.

P SO2 ENVIR

of Causa

Sections 2 td to KMP. The steps woudelling are re

ns

exceedance missions.

entration daess consistenMP SO2 emiss

Critical Load

ood of altere effect of nulative effec

s in the map

ributable to

l survey ands; for examp

ood of alterct of non‐KMe effect of al

Critical Load

ood of altere effect of nulative effec

s in the map

RONMENTAL

l Relatio

hrough 6 inche process fold be underteached.

event by ass

ata, meteoroncy with thesions versus

Exceedance

rnative explaon‐KMP emct of all emis

pping and mo

S depositio

d modelling tple, whether

rnative explaMP emissionl emission so

Exceedance

rnative explaon‐KMP emct of all emis

pping and mo

EFFECTS MO

onship to

clude the coor determinitaken for a g

sessing mete

ological conde known form all emission

e Risk for So

anations for ission sourcssion sources

odelling of d

on

to assess ther there are th

anations for n sources incources inclu

e Risk for W

anations for ission sourcssion sources

odelling of d

ONITORING (

o KMP

ondition thating KMP caugiven KPI if t

eorological c

ditions, the m of impactsns sources

oils

critical loades includings including K

deposition, c

e spatial signhere wider i

soil acidificacluding LNG ding KMP.

Water

critical loades includings including K

deposition, c

EEM) PROG

t threshold usality is the threshol

conditions, a

nature of ths to foliage o

exceedance LNG plants KMP.

critical loads

nificance of ssues over >

ation: 1) KMplants and o

exceedance LNG plants KMP.

critical loads

GRAM

43

ds

and

e of

es: 1) and

s and

>1%

P other

es: 1) and

s and

PROGRAM

Water Ch Proving cchain in tevidenceScheurermechanibiologicapublishedare well weight o

Figure 7. C

The evidedifferentthe likelicould be questioncontinuelarger sathe earlystatisticaof data a

PLAN FOR 20

hemistry – E

causality (i.ethe source‐pe for alternatr 2007), Marsm; 2) exposal response id studies. Thunderstood f evidence a

Conceptual (Slinkages

entiary framt lines of evidhood that KMpeer reviews will be reves, the statistmple sizes (Fy years of theal power anare required

KM

13 TO 2018

Evidentiary F

., acidificatiopathway‐rective causal prmorek et al.sure to the pn space andhe pathways(Marmorek analysis is on

Source‐Pathws between sou

mework (Tabdence that tMP has causwed if there aviewed each tical power tFigure 16 in e program dalyses discusto detect ch

P SO2 ENVIR

Framework

on of lakes reptor diagrapathways. W. 2011) rely opollutant; 3) time; and 4s and plausibet al. 1989,

n exposure, c

way‐Receptorurces and rec

le 17) providhen need tosed acidificaare concernyear, and anto detect smAppendix Hue to insuffised in Appehanges of int

RONMENTAL

for Evaluati

related to KMam (Figure 7

Weight of evidon four type correlation 4) experimenble mechanisBaker et al. correlation a

) model of SOceptors. Sourc

des a series oo be jointly etion. This cos about the nswered to tmall changes ). Some queicient samplndix H will bterest (e.g., T

EFFECTS MO

ing the Caus

MP) requires7), and evaludence analyes of evidencof pollutantntal evidencesms of acidif1991a), so tand experim

O2 emissions ice: Figure 3.1

of questionsevaluated to onclusion andata, methothe degree pin lake chem

estions may ne sizes and lbe helpful foTable 27) wi

ONITORING (

se of acidific

s following tating multipses (Burkharce: 1) a plaut exposure ae from the rfication of suthe focus of

mental eviden

in the environ1‐1 from ESSA

s and tests fodraw a concd the associods or conclupossible. As mistry will innot be clearlimited statior defining hoith high stat

EEM) PROG

cation

the cause‐effple lines of rdt‐Holm ansible and chemicaegion or othurface watethe proposence.

nment, showA et al. 2013.

or various clusion regaated evidenusions. All the programncrease due rly answerabstical powerow many yeistical powe

GRAM

44

fect

nd

l / her rs ed

ing

rding ce

m to ble in r. The ears r.

P

T

Lim

3

2

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Table 17. EvidentRe

Links in SPR model

Question

3 Have SO2 significantKMP perioincreased

3 Has SO4 dmonitorinKMP perioSO2 emissnegligiblecations todepositio

2, 3 Has backgrange souincreasedincrease isince the

3, 8, 9 Has lake [manner cincreases depositiomonitorin

7,9 Do the obchanges inorganic ca

23 Further discussio

OR 2013 TO 2018

tiary framework fceptor Diagram (

emissions from KMtly beyond levels inod, potentially cau acidic deposition?

eposition at Kitimang stations increaseod in a manner prosions? Has N depos changes? Is deposoo low to neutralizen?

ground SO4 depositurces outside the st much less than thn KMP‐related SO4

pre‐KMP period?

[SO4] increased posonsistent with predin deposition of SOn levels inferred frong observations?

bserved spatial andn climate, pH, ANCarbon (DOC) and su

on is required to de

for evaluating if a(Figure 7). The las

M[R

MP increased n the pre‐sing ?

Cope7.

at and Lakelse ed since pre‐oportional to sition shown sition of base e SO4

Covsfoem20

tion (long tudy area) e estimated

4 deposition,

ExAlCoet

st‐KMP in a dicted O4, and om

Extimprob[Sal

d temporal C, dissolved ulphate

Exanco

efine the pre‐KMP

acidification has ost three columns

Methods Used to AnReferences with exa

ompare mean dailyeriod vs. post‐KMP4‐2, pg. 139; Stodd

ompare monthly as. KMP ramp‐up peor each deposition missions. Also asse011. [STAR, Figure

xamine trends in SOlaska and other moompare observed ct al. 2014, pg. 259]

xamine distributionme trends within inredicted changes inbserved SO4 deposStoddard et al. 1996. 1998].

xamine trends in annd assess if periodsorrelated with incre

period, considering

KMP SO2 E

occurred and wheshow answers to

nswer Questionamples of these an

y emissions in pre‐P steady state periodard et al. 2003]

nd annual SO4 anderiod vs. post‐KMP site. Regress depoess trends in [SO4] i7.4‐6, pg. 142‐143

O4 deposition and onitoring stations, change to modelle

n of changes in lakendividual lakes. Con SO4 deposition wsition from Kitimat 6 [eq 1]; Stoddard

nnual precipitations of drought followeases in [SO4] and

g changes in both s

NVIRONMENTAL

ether it is or is noo the question in

nalyses]

KMP period23 vs. Kod; assess trends. [

N deposition in prsteady state, and asition at each site vn wet deposition (; Stoddard et al. 20

[SO4] in wet deposas reported in the d effect of KMP de

e [SO4] across multmpare trends in [S

with KMP in the STAand Lakelse monitet al. 2003, pg. 32‐

n from meteorologwed by wetter yearsdecreases in ANC [

smelter emissions

L EFFECTS MONIT

ot related to KMPcolumn 2.

KMP ramp‐up [STAR, Figure

re‐KMP period assess trends, vs. KMP (µeq/l/yr) since 003, pg. 21‐29]

sition from literature. eposition [ESSA

tiple lakes and SO4] to AR, as well as toring stations ‐56, Sullivan et

gical stations, s were [Yan et al.

and other sources

TORING (EEM)

P. SPR = Source‐P

Implications of Evidence

consistent with KMP as

primary cause of acidification

a

a

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(e.g., 2010‐2012).

PROGRAM

45

athway‐

AnswersEvidence

against KMP as primary cause of

acidification

No

No

No

No

No

P

Lim

7

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Links in SPR model

Question

suggest dsulphate sKMP rathefluctuatiohistorical

8 Has lake Amanner c[SO4] and (F‐factor)?

8 Has lake pmanner cANC decrecurves?

8 Have lakebeyond id

2, 3, 7, 8, 9

Are obserconsistenother thaepisodes, acidificati

OR 2013 TO 2018

rought‐caused oxidstored in wetlandser than due to climns affecting wetlanS deposition?

ANC decreased posonsistent with incrwatershed neutra?

pH decreased post‐onsistent with SO4

eases, and lake‐spe

e pH and ANC valuedentified threshold

rved changes in Cl, t with causes of acn KMP (i.e., sea salN emissions, orgaon)?

M[R

dation of , related to

mate nd storage of

1920

st‐KMP in a reases in lake lizing abilities

ExAN

tr

veAN19

‐KMP in a increases, ecific titration

ExtimasSOFi

es decreased s (Table 27)?

UsanunpHmAN

NO3 and DOC cidification lt driven nic

ExchM

Methods Used to AnReferences with exa

996, Dillon et al. 19004]

xamine distributionNC time trends wit

ends (e.g., Figure 1

ersus SO4 to estimNC has or has not c996 [eq 1]; Stoddar

xamine distributionme trends within inssess if SO4, ANC anO4‐driven acidificatgure 17; Stoddard

se graphs like Figund the % of companits, a trigger for mH and ANC using re

monitoring that provNC. [Section 6.2, A

xamine the percenhanged over time [Marmorek et al. 198

KMP SO2 E

nswer Questionamples of these an

996, Stoddard et al

n of changes in lakethin individual lake

11, Figure 12 and F

mate F‐factor for eachanged. [Section 6rd et al. 2003 pg. 3

n of changes in lakendividual lakes. Usnd pH changes are tion [Section 6.2; Fet al. 2003 pg. 32‐

re 17 to assess pH risons showing dec

more monitoring in egression analyses vide better estimatAppendix H]

t anion compositioe.g., STAR pages 389, Baker et al. 199

NVIRONMENTAL

nalyses]

. 2003 (pg. 29‐30);

e ANC across multies. Compare ANC a

Figure 13). Examine

ach lake, and to un6.2; Figure 17; Stod2‐56]

e pH across multipe lake‐specific titraall consistent withigure 11, Figure 1256]

changes across all creases of more thTable 14. Examinefor lakes with mortes of natural varia

on of each lake and10 to 314, Marmor91a, Monteith et al

L EFFECTS MONIT

; Laudon et al.

iple lakes and and SO4 time

e (Ca + Mg)

nderstand why ddard et al.

ple lakes and ation curves to h hypothesis of 2 and Figure 13;

7 EEM lakes, han 0.3 pH e time trends in re intensive ation in pH and

d how it has rek et al. 1988, . 2007]

TORING (EEM)

Implications of Evidence

consistent with KMP as

primary cause of acidification

a

a

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

PROGRAM

46

AnswersEvidence

against KMP as primary cause of

acidification

No

No

No

Yes

PROGRAM

8.0 RIm

Rio Tintomodelingemissiontypes of paragrap

8.1 R

Ifyedsoptrasom1

Ifexlotheaaw1Apim

24 Refer to 25 Refer to

PLAN FOR 20

RIO TINTmpacts

o Alcan will img under the s of SO2 thamitigations:phs describe

RECEPTOR‐BA

f soil critical ears, or if exetailed in Seoil acidity in otentially imreatments (ss a proof of f time for a

mitigation if t0 years.

f pH in a valuxplanation oogistically fehe lake pH bmissions. Onddition of alccess, safetywhole lake, it990). A sumAppendix G. LH declines gmplement fa

Appendix D foSection 6.1 fo

KM

13 TO 2018

TO ALCA

mplement SSO2 EEM Prot are consid receptor‐baexamples o

ASED MITIGA

loads are prxchangeableection 5.1, thvery localize

mproving tresummarized concept prioliming/woodthe pilot is u

ued24 lake deof this pH deasible, Rio Tback to its levne of the opkaline matey and other ets running wmary of the Liming woulgreater than acility‐based

or information r the threshold

P SO2 ENVIR

N Mitiga

O2 mitigatioogram showered to be uased mitigatf each type.

ATION

redicted to b cation poolhe applicatioed applicatioe growth. Gin Appendixor to large scd ash pilot, aunsuccessful

eclines by mecline is increTinto Alcan cvel in 2012, tions used trials like limenvironmen

water or on itstate of knod only be ap0.30 units amitigation25

on the methodds for receptor

RONMENTAL

ation Re

on strategiesw adverse imunacceptableions and fac

be exceededs will decreaon of lime anons, increasiGiven the widx F), small sccale applicatand consider. Most studi

ore than 0.3eased SO2 emould develoand reverseo mitigate a

mestone (calctal considerts watershedowledge regpplied for upnd related t5.

d and results for‐based mitigat

EFFECTS MO

esponse

s if the outcopacts relatee. The EEM Pcility‐based m

in >5% of thase by amound wood ashing calcium cde range of cale pilot apption. The 20ration of a ses show a re

30 pH units, missions frop and implee the acidificacidic conditicium carbonrations, limind using a boaarding liminp to two laketo KMP, Rio T

or rating the vtion.

ONITORING (

for Una

omes of mond to Rio TintProgram distmitigations.

he study areunts and with are optionsconcentratioeffectivenesplications w0 year horizhift to facilitesponse in t

and the mom KMP, thement a procation causedions in surfaate). Depenng could be dat, truck or hng of lakes is es; if more thTinto Alcan

vulnerable lake

EEM) PROG

acceptab

nitoring and to Alcan tinguishes twThe followin

ea within 200hin timeframs for reducinons in trees,ss of these ould be requon allows amty‐based he soil withi

st likely n if liming iscess to restod by KMP SOace water is tding on lakedone on thehelicopter (Oprovided inhan 2 lakes swould

es.

GRAM

47

ble

wo ng

0 mes ng and

uired mple

in 5‐

s ore O2 the e e Olem show

PROGRAM

8.2 F Sections water thdemonstoperatioa sufficiepermanereducingconsideramethodsfor reducthe range

a) P

Tsudw

b) R

Incafo

c) Im

Bap

d) Sc

Imsccoinegea

PLAN FOR 20

ACILITY‐BAS

3.1, 4.1, 5.1resholds fortrated unaccns. Facility‐bent level to aent dependin SO2 emissioation of the s, and markecing SO2 emie of SO2 redrocuring low

he coke blenulphur conteetermined b

with lower su

educing the

ncreased quaalcining onsior anode gra

mporting ano

aked anodenode bakinglace access t

crubber on C

mplementingcrubbing on ompared to ncreased quanvironmenteneration, end the accep

KM

13 TO 2018

ED MITIGAT

1 and 6.1 desfacility‐base

ceptable impbased mitigaaddress the dng on the peons will be anature of th

et place condissions are bduction in t/dwer sulphur c

nd used for aent in the anbased on maulphur conte

amount of c

antities of caite. The feasade calcined

odes

s can be impg operationsto baked ano

Coke Calcine

g a scrubberthe coke cacosts, and tantities of caal impact asenergy consuptability to s

P SO2 ENVIR

ION

scribe (respeed mitigatiopacts causedation will reddemonstrateersistence ofn Rio Tinto Ahe impacts, fditions. Sombriefly descriday that coucontent coke

anode manunode. The market place cent.

calcined cok

alcined cokesibility of thiscoke.

ported to Kit. This optionodes and tra

er

r on the cokelciner will behe accessibialcined cokesessment ofumption, GHstakeholders

RONMENTAL

ectively) the n. Facility‐bad by SO2 emiduce SO2 emed unacceptf the threshoAlcan businefeasibility ane of the optbed below, uld be achieve

ufacturing caagnitude of onditions an

ke produced

e can be procs option will

timat to eithn would be ransportation

e calciner is e based on ality of eithere. The assessf this mitigatHG emissionss of the selec

EFFECTS MO

health, vegeased mitigatssions result

missions fromtable impactold exceedaness based dend sustainabions that Riofollowed byved, and the

an be adjustthe sulphurnd accessibil

on site

cured to redl be based o

her reduce oreviewed forn costs.

possible. A da business rer lower sulpsment will altion measurs, the operatcted type of

ONITORING (

etation, soil tion will be ating from KMm the smeltint, and may bnce. The meecision that wbility of altero Tinto Alcany Table 18 whe implement

ed to lower r content redlity to anode

duce the amn market pla

or stop coke r feasibility b

decision to ieview of a schur contentlso consider e, including ting risks of f feasible scr

EEM) PROG

and surfacea response tMP future ng operatione episodic oethodology fowill factor innative mitign will considhich presentation timelin

the overall ductions wille grade coke

ount of cokeace conditio

calcining or based on ma

mplement crubbing opt cokes or the waste the scrubberubbing.

GRAM

48

e o

n by or or n gation der ts ne.

l be es

e ons

arket

tion

er

PROGRAM

e) Sc

Tbsmcofrasea

Table 18.

Reduction

Procuring lcoke

Reducing tcoke produ

Importing content

Scrubber o

Scrubber o

Scrubbers

26 One or

These otime an

PLAN FOR 20

crubbing on

he option ofased on a bumelter. The omparison trom smeltingssessment onergy consucceptability

SO2 reductio

option

lower sulphur

the amount of uced on site

anodes with lo

on Coke Calcine

on 1 GTC

on 2 GTC

r more of the

a confirman EEM Kthe neededescribed

options are nnd other opt

KM

13 TO 2018

one or both

f implementusiness casereview will co the feasibg operationsof this mitigaumption, GHto stakehold

n options and

p

content

calcined

ower sulfur

er

ese reductioed environmPI source‐baed amount od in sections not binding, ions may be

P SO2 ENVIR

h gas treatm

ting scrubbin review of thconsider theility assessms. The assessation measuG emissionsders of the s

d associated t

potential range

minimum t/day

1

1

1

7

14

29

on options wmental impaased mitigatof SO2 reduc3‐6 of this das the efficaecome availa

RONMENTAL

ent centres

ng on one orhe options te constructioment of the osment will are, includings, the operatselected type

timeline for r

e of reduction

maximumt/day

15

8

20

NA

NA

NA

would only bect related toion trigger istion has beedocument. acy and avaiable in the fu

EFFECTS MO

r both gas tro reduce SOon and operaother optionlso considerg waste geneting risks of te of feasible

eduction26.

Implementa

3 to 6 mont

Short‐term

Long‐term c

6 to 18 mon

5 ‐ 6 years :

a) Feasibb) Permc) Engin

Constd) Comm

7‐8 years :

a) Feasibb) Permc) Engin

Constd) Comm

e implemeno KMP SO2 es reached, aen determin

lability of souture

ONITORING (

eatment cenO2 emissions ating costs ons to reduce r the environeration, watthe scrubbee scrubbing.

ation timeline

ths

curtailment: 1

curtailment: 6

nths

bility study: 1 yitting: 1 years eering, Procurtruction: 2 ‐ 3 Ymissioning: 1 ye

bility study: 1 yitting: 2‐3 yeareering, Procurtruction: 3 yeamissioning: 1 ye

ted if there missions, nd ed through

ome options

EEM) PROG

ntres will befrom the Ki

of the scrubbSO2 loadingnmental imper release, r and the

1 day to 2 week

months

year

rement, Years ears

years rs rement, rs ears

is:

the method

may vary w

GRAM

49

e itmat ber in gs pact

ks

s

with

PROGRAM

9.0 A

9.1 A SO2 EEM summarybased onSO2 for thannual reAnnual republicatimemorainterestereviews, Each yeareport anintegratehealth). Annual KEEM resufor that y

9.2 C A compreEEM PlanOctober

S D

w D

o Lo

u R

mre

R

PLAN FOR 20

Annual R

ANNUAL REPO

reporting wy of activitien the results he past yeareports will beport prepaon by Marchnda, allowined. The Haislstudy design

r of the EEMnd during thed across the

Kitimat Publiults and repoyear.

COMPREHENS

ehensive revn from 2013 31, 2019, w

ummarize wDescribe whicwere taken, Describe any n annual resook across tnderstandinecommend

measuremenecommendeecommend

KM

13 TO 2018

Reportin

ORTING AND

will occur on s and resultsfrom the prr will also bee written foration will bh 31st. Detailng access to ta First Nations and evolu

M program, ae course of te four lines o

c Advisory Cort out on th

SIVE REVIEW

view will be to 2018. A rhich will:

what has beech if any of t

modificatiosults to datehe data setsng of KMP SOchanges if/at methods, aed changes, aa date for th

P SO2 ENVIR

ng, and C

D CONSULTAT

an annual bs from the yrevious field e included, tor a non‐techegin early inls of the resuthe technicaon will be invutions of the

a meeting wthe meetingof evidence

Committee (Khe findings f

W IN 2019

conducted ireport synth

en learned, athe KPI thres

ns to KPIs, me, and why,s of the four O2 effects onas needed toand/or theirand he next com

RONMENTAL

Compreh

TION

basis. These aear, and plaseason. Info provide cohnical audienn the next caults from eaal details for vited to parte EEM progra

ill be called g develop an(surface wat

KPAC) meetirom the pre

n 2019, exahesizing the r

and what qusholds have

methods or t

lines of evidn the enviroo: the suite or thresholds

prehensive

EFFECTS MO

hensive

annual repons for the suormation onontext for resnce and intealendar yearch year will the ECC, KPticipate in deam.

to review th interpretatters, vegetat

ings will be hevious year, a

mining whatresults of th

estion have been reache

thresholds th

dence to devnment and hof KPIs to be– along with

review.

ONITORING (

Review

orts will contubsequent fn aluminum sults interprended for pur, with the inbe documenPAC, and anyetailed annu

he annual EEion of the EEtion, soils, a

held in eachand discuss

t has occurris review wi

been answeed, and if so

hat have bee

velop an holhuman healte continued ph the rationa

EEM) PROG

in 2019

tain a concisield programproduction retation. Theublic distribuntention of nted in techyone else whual program

EM program EM data nd human

h spring to reactions plan

ed under thll be prepare

ered, o, what actio

en made bas

istic th, post‐2018, tale for these

GRAM

50

e m and e ution.

nical ho is

eview nned

e SO2 ed by

ons

sed

their e

PROGRAM

10.0 R Baker, L.A

Chempp.

Baker, L.AStrea1151

Benke, Afreshsouth343.

Bishop, Kof spReso

Brown, GGas J

Burkhardasses

Downie, NorthEnvir

Dillon, P.recov

Driscoll, CLikenundeBrookat:htt14, 2

Eilers, J.MLiteraWI, 2

ESSA TecUniveAsses

PLAN FOR 20

Referenc

A., P. R. Kaumistry (Rep 9

A. Alan T. Heams in the U‐1154.

A.C., A.D. Hurwater macroheastern Un

K.H, H.Laudoring flood pHurces Resea

G.W., D. Rodournal, 89 (7

dt‐Holm, P. ass the declin

A.J. 2005. Dhwest Coastonment. 41

J., L.A. Molovery of acidif

C.T., G.B. Lans, J.L. Stoddrstanding sik Research Ftp://www.h013.

M, G.J. Lien aature Review20 pp.

chnologies, Jersity, Trinityssment Repo

KM

13 TO 2018

ces

fmann, A.T. 9), NAPAP St

erlihy, Philipnited States

ryn, L.A. Smooinvertebratited States. J

on, S. KohlerH decline: A rch 36(7): 18

erick, A. Nas7). ABI/INFO

and K. Scheue of brown t

rinking Watal Communipp.

ot, and M. Fufied lakes. E

wrence, A.J.ard, and K.Cnce the passFoundation. ubbardbroo

and R.G. Berw. Departme

. Laurence, y Consultantort in Suppo

P SO2 ENVIR

Herlihy, J.Mate of Scien

p R. Kaufman: The Role o

ock and J.B. tes in North Journal of th

. 2000. Sepamethod for 873‐1884.

stri. 1991. DORM Global p

urer. 2007. Atrout (Salmo

er Source Qities: Prince

utter. 1997. nvironmenta

. Bulger, T.J. C. Weathers.sage of the 1Science Linkk.org/6‐12_

rg. 1984. Aquent of Natura

Limnotek, Rts, and Univert of the 201

RONMENTAL

M. Eilers. 199ce and Tech

nn, Joseph Mf Acidic Dep

Wallace. 19America withe North Am

arating the nareas that a

ry Scrubber p. 41.

Application oo trutta) in Sw

uality MonitRupert, Terr

The effect oal Monitorin

Butler, C.S. . 2001. Acid 1970 and 19ks™ Publicat_education/G

uatic Organial Resources

isk Sciences ersity of Illin13 Applicatio

EFFECTS MO

91a. Current nology, NAP

M. Eilers. 199position. Scie

999. Length‐mth particularmerican Bent

natural and aare not chro

Reduces SO

of the weightwiss Rivers.

toring 2002‐race and Kit

of El Nino‐reng and Asses

Cronan, C. ERain Revisit

990 Clean Airtion, Vol. 1, NGlossary/Aci

isimgs in Acis Technical B

Internationnois. 2013. Son to Amend

ONITORING (

Status of AcPAP, Washin

91b. Acidic Lence, Vol. 25

mass relatior reference tthological So

anthropogenonically acidif

O2 in Calciner

t‐of‐evidencAquatic Scie

‐03 – Parasitimat. BC Min

lated droughssment 46:1

Eagar, K.F. Laed: advancer Act AmendNo.1. AvailaidRain.pdf. A

idic EnvironmBulletin No.

al, Rio TintoSulphur Dioxd the P2‐000

EEM) PROG

cid Base ngton, DC. 38

Lakes and 52, No. 5009

onships for to the ociety, 18: 30

nic componefied. Water

r Flue Gas. O

ce approach ences. 69: 51

te Sampling nistry o f

ht on the 05‐111.

ambert, G.Ees in scientifidments. Hubable Accessed Ju

ments: A 150. Madiso

o Alcan, Trenxide Technic001 Multime

GRAM

51

83

9, pp.

08‐

ents

Oil &

to 1‐70.

in

. ic bbard

ne

on,

nt cal edia

PROGRAM

Permfor Ri

ESSA TecConsMinis

HemondWate

Jost, L. 20

Landers, SchonCharaand PAgen

Laudon, episo6015in theColum

Lester, N85‐96Hube

MarmoremineRepoServi

MarmoreFallon44: 2

Marmoreand CTechnthe F

MonteithSkjelkorgan450:5depoAssoc

PLAN FOR 20

mit for the Kitio Tinto Alca

chnologies, Jultants. 201stry of Enviro

, H.F. 1990. ers Containin

006. Entropy

D.H., J. M. Enbrod, R.E. Cacteristics ofPhysico‐Chemcy, Washing

H., P.J. Dilloodic acidifica.Laurence, Je Vicinity of mbia. Report

N. P., P. E. Ba6 in Standardert, and D. W

ek, D.R., D.Pral acid deport prepared ces Inc. for t

ek, D.R., D.Pn. 1989. A p35‐257.

ek, D.R., D. PC.Schwarz. 2nical Reportraser River.

h, D.T., J.L. Skvale, D.S. Jenic carbon tr537‐540.Oleosition, stateciates. 149 p

KM

13 TO 2018

timat Modean, Kitimat, B

. Laurence, 4. Kitimat Aonment, Sm

Acid Neutrang Organic A

y and divers

Eilers, D.F. BCrowe, R.A. f Lakes in thmical Relatiogton, DC. 176

n, M.C. Eimeation of strea. A. 2010. A the Rio Tintot to Rio Tinto

ily, and W. Ad Methods f

Willis (eds.). A

. Bernard, Mosition on coby ESSA Envthe US Envir

. Bernard, Crotocol for d

Pickard, A. H2011. Fraser 6. The Cohe363 pp.

toddard, C.Deffries, J. Vurends resultim, H. 1990. of science app. + Append

P SO2 ENVIR

rnization ProB.C. 450 pp.

Risk Scienceirshed Emissithers, BC. 2

lizing CapacAcids. Enviro

ity. Oikos, 1

rakke, W.S. Linthurst, J.Me Western Uonships. EPA6pp.

ers, R.G. Semams in centrReview of tho Alcan Britio Alcan date

A. Hubert. 20for SamplingAmerican Fis

M.L. Jones, L.oncentrationvironmentalonmental Pr

.H.R. Wedeldetermining

all, K. Bryanr River sockeen Commissi

D. Evans, H.Aorenmaa, B.ing from chaLiming Acidand technolodices.

RONMENTAL

oject. Volum

es Internatiosions Effects205 pp. + app

ity, Alkalinitn. Sci. Techn

13(2), 363‐3

Overton, P.EM. OmernikUnited StateA/600/3‐86/

mkin, and D.Sral Ontario. Ehe Vegetatioish Columbiaed May 16, 2

009. Coldwag North Amesheries Socie

.P. Rattie, anns of dissolv and Social Srotection Ag

es, G.D. Suthlake acidific

, L. Martell, eye salmon: dion of Inquir

A. de Wit, M. Keller, J. Koanges in atmic Surface Wogy report: A

EFFECTS MO

me 2: Final Te

nal, Trent Us Assessmenpendices.

ty, and Acid‐nol. 24:1486

375.

E. Keliar, M.Ek, S.A. Teagus. Volume I/054a. U.S.

S. Jeffries. 2Environ. Sci. on Monitorina Operations2010.

ater fish in smerican Freshwety, Bethesd

nd T.J. Sullivaved organic aSystems Anagency, Corva

herland, J.A.cation pathw

C. Alexandedata synthery into the D

M. Forsius, T. opacek, and mospheric deWaters, IssueAquatic proc

ONITORING (

echnical Rep

niversity, ant. Report pr

‐Base Status 6‐1489.

E. Silversteine, and E.P. M. PopulationEnvironmen

004. Climate Technol. 38ng and Assess at Kitimat,

mall standinwater Fish. Sda, Maryland

an. 1988. Thacids in surfaalysts Ltd. anallis, Oregon

. Malanchukways. Water

er, K. Wieckosis and cumDecline of So

Hogasen, AJ. Vesely. 20eposition chee 15 in NAPAcesses and e

EEM) PROG

port. Prepare

nd Trinity epared for B

of Natural

n, R.D. Meier. 1987n Descriptionntal Protectio

e‐induced 8:6009‐ssment Prog British

ng waters. PaS. Bonar, W. d.

he effects of ace waters. nd Northrop. 110 pp.

k, and W.E. Air and Soil

owski, L. Greulative impaockeye Salmo

. Wilander, B007. Dissolveemistry. NatAP Acidic effects. Olem

GRAM

52

ed

BC

7. ns on

gram

ages

Poll.

eig acts. on in

B.L. ed ture

m

PROGRAM

RIC. 1997EnvirReso

Smock, LBiolo

StoddardDetec

StoddardMurdCleanAgenResea

StrømmeContr

Sullivan, 1988

Yan, N.Din a la

PLAN FOR 20

7. Fish Colleconment, Lanurces Invent

L. A. 1980. Regy 10: 375‐3

d, J. L., A. D. ction of regi

d, J.L., J.S. Kadoch, J.R. Wen Air Act Amcy, Office ofarch Laborat

en, S.O. , E. Brol in the Alu

T.J., J.M. Eile. Atmospher

., W. Keller, ake owing to

KM

13 TO 2018

ction Methonds and Parktory Commit

elationship b383.

Newell, N. Sonal acidific

ahl, F.A. Deviebb, and K.Eendments of Research atory, Resear

Bjørnstad, Guminium Ind

ers, M.R. Chric wet sulph

N.M. Scully,o drought‐in

P SO2 ENVIR

ods and Stanks, Fish Invettee (RIC).

between bod

S. Urquhart, cation trends

iney, D.R. DeE. Webster. of 1990. EPA nd Developmrch Triangle

. Wedde. 20dustry. TMS

urch, D.J. Blhate deposit

, D.R.S. Leannduced acidif

RONMENTAL

dards. Prepantory Unit fo

dy size and b

and D. Kugles. Water Res

eWalle, C.T. 2003. Respo620/R‐03/0ment. NationPark, NC 277

000. ALSTOM2000.

ick, K.N. Eshtion and lake

n, and P.J. Dification. Nat

EFFECTS MO

ared by the or the Aquat

biomass of a

er. 1996. Thesources Rese

Driscoll, A.Tonse of Surfa001. US Envirnal Health a711. 92 pp.

M POWER NO

hleman, D.H.ewater chem

llon. 1996. Iture 381:141

ONITORING (

B.C. Ministrtic Ecosystem

aquatic insec

e TIME projeearch 32:252

T. Herlihy, J.Hace Water Cronmental Pnd Environm

ORWAY. SO2

. Landers, anmistry. Natur

ncreased UV1‐143.

EEM) PROG

y of ms Task Forc

cts. Freshwa

ect design: I29‐2538.

H. Kellogg, PChemistry to Protection mental Effec

2 Emission

nd M.S. DeHre 331:607‐6

V‐B penetrat

GRAM

53

ce,

ater

I.

P.S. the

ts

Haan. 609.

tion

PROGRAM

Appen Questionin the SOof the qupathwaymore of thypothesapplicablalso answfour rece

Figure 8. S

Doeaccu

Doeaccu

sWhde

Inddeposit

Direct

PLAN FOR 20

ndix A: Q

ns that aroseO2 EEM Progruestions perts – and as suthe receptorses represenle). In additiower the queseptors? Table

Summary of tanswer,

Pathway

es the CALPUFF mrately predict po

SO2 levels?

es the CALPUFF rately predict posulphur depositihat are the base cposition values i

study region?

direct, throution and acid

t exposure tothe air

KM

13 TO 2018

Question

e during the ram (as expltain directly uch, the answrs. The quesnting alternaon to answestion, will SOe 20 matche

the questions by pathway

model ost‐KMP

model ost‐KMP on?cationin the ?

gh S dification

o SO2 in

P SO2 ENVIR

ns the SO

SO2 technicaained in Secto the recepwers may aftions are listative outcomering these aO2 emissionses the EEM in

s that the KPIsand receptor

Human

Vegetat

Soils

Lakes an

Are Does

What is t

HoH

WhIf la

RONMENTAL

O2 EEM

al assessmection 1.2) – aptors, three ffect the preted in greatemes are provassessment qs from KMP hndicators to

s and informar.

health

tion

nd streams,

What

How healthy plants of public s plant sensitivity

Are soiWhat is base c

the rate of soil a

ow do model uncHow many of thehat fish are in thekes acidify by > 0

EFFECTS MO

Program

nt – and whare summariof the quest

edicted impaer detail in Tvided for eacquestions, thhave unaccethese quest

ative indicato

Recep

& aquatic b

is the peak‐to‐mshorter SO2 e

is vegetation in aimportance shoy fall within the r

l weathering ratcation pool in arecidification mea

to acidic depo

certainties affecte vulnerable lakee vulnerable lake0.3 pH units, do

ONITORING (

m Will A

ich are impoized in Figurtions pertainact categorieTable 19. At ch question (he SO2 EEM eptable impations.

ors in the SO2

tor

iota

mean relationshiexposures?

areas of CL exceewing symptoms range reported i

e estimates valideas with CL exceasured as loss of osition?

t prediction of CLes actually acidifyes that can be safish communitie

EEM) PROG

nswer

ortant to anse 8. While mn to impact es for one orleast two (where Program wiacts on any t

EEM Program

p for

edence? in these areas? n the literature?

d?eedance? base cations ow

L exceedence?y post‐KMP?afely sampled? es also change?

GRAM

54

swer most

r

ll these

m will

?

wing

PROGRAM

Table 19.

Pathway orReceptor

AtmospherConcentrat

AtmospherDeposition

Human Hea

Vegetation

PLAN FOR 20

Questions an

Quest

ic ions

A1. Drepreconceprediceitherexpos(i.e., a

ic D1. Daccursulph

Affectfor so

D2. Wdeposregion

alth HH1. CALPUSO2 le

HH2. relatioexpos

V1. Vamoderight p

KM

13 TO 2018

nd hypothese

tion

oes CALPUFF asent post‐KMPentrations? Affctions for all rer directly (i.e., ssure impacts) oacidification im

oes the CALPUately predict pur deposition?

ts predictions ooil, lakes and st

What are the basition values inn?

How conservaUFF model in pevels?

What is the peonship for shosures?

alidation of theel – are we lookplace?

P SO2 ENVIR

s that will be

accurately P SO2 air fects eceptors, sulphur or indirectly mpacts).

UFF model post‐KMP total ?

of acidificationtreams.

ase cation n the study

tive is the predictions of

eak‐to‐mean rter duration

e dispersion king in the

RONMENTAL

addressed in

Hypotheses

H1. CALPUFacceptaSO2 con

H2. CALPUFacceptaSO2 con

n

H1. Total suan acceCALPUF

H2. Total sulower twas co

H3. Total suhigher

H1. Measurresult iextent loads (o

H2. Measurnot resof soil o

H1. Model to actuareas.

H2. Pre‐KMSO2 levconcen

H1. The peaare equmodel.

H2. The obare gre

H1. Post‐KMmeasurconcenthe mo

H2. Post‐KMmeasurconcenthe mo

EFFECTS MO

n the SO2 EEM

s

FF model predable range whencentration da

FF model predable range whencentration da

ulphur depositeptable level oFF predictions.

ulphur depositthan CALPUFF nservative).

ulphur depositthan CALPUFF

rements of basn reduced estiof exceedanceor no change i

rements of bassult in reduced or water critica

predictions aral post‐KMP co

MP model predvels in residentntrations post‐K

ak‐to‐mean raual to or less th

served peak‐toeater than wha

MP passive andrements show ntration distribodel.

MP passive andrements show ntration distribodel.

ONITORING (

M Program.

ictions fall witen compared tata.

ictions fall outen compared tata.

tion measuremf agreement w.

tion measurempredictions (i.e

tion measurem predictions.

se cation depoimates of magne of soil and wan predictions).

se cation depo estimates of eal loads.

e conservativeonditions in re

ictions underetial areas (i.e., gKMP).

tios observed han that produ

o‐mean ratios at is modelled.

d continuous ma similar SO2 ution to that p

d continuous ma different SOution to that p

EEM) PROG

hin an to actual

tside an to actual

ments show with

ments are e., CALPUFF

ments are

osition nitude or ater critical .

osition do exceedance

e or similar esidential

estimate greater SO2

post‐KMP uced by the

post‐KMP

monitoring

predicted by

monitoring O2 predicted by

GRAM

55

PROGRAM

Pathway orReceptor

Soils

PLAN FOR 20

Quest

V2. Hsites wof critlakes Lakels

V3. Aimporareas of soi

V4. Dunknoassocdeposof var

S1. Arweathvalid fwherecation

S2. Wcapacsoils i

S3. Wacidifbase cprotodepos

KM

13 TO 2018

tion

ow healthy is vwith predictedtical loads of soand streams sose Lake?

re plants of purtance showingwith highest el critical loads?

o plants at Kitiown sensitivityiated pollutantsition) fall withriation in the lit

re estimates ofhering rates byfor vulnerable e lakes have lons)?

What is the currcity (base cation exceeded ar

What is the rateication measurcations (or incrns) owing to asition?

P SO2 ENVIR

vegetation in exceedance oil and/or outh of

ublic g symptoms inexceedances ?

imat that havey to SO2 and ts (acidic hin the range terature?

f average y bedrock typeareas (e.g.,

ow base

rent buffering n pool) of the eas?

e of soil red as loss of rease in cidic

RONMENTAL

Hypotheses

No hypothemonitoring load exceed

H1. Negligi

H2. Indirec

base ca

H3. Indirectbase ca

H1. Yes, therespon

H2. No, symmay bethe lite

H1. Estimatassessmsuch as

H2. Estimatassessmvulneraof excecritical

H1. The curand unmany d

H2. The curand unonly a f

H1. Measurindicateacidificmany d

H2. Measurindicateacidificyears o

EFFECTS MO

s

eses to test; an for damage indance.

ble or no effec

t effects on pla

ations and Al a

t effects on plaations and Al a

e scientific liteses of the mos

mptoms indicae more sensitiverature.

tes of soil weament are applis lakes with low

tes of soil weament are too hable areas, reseedance of soilloads.

rrent bufferingder post‐KMPdecades to be d

rrent bufferingder post KMP few years to be

rements of acte the magnitudcation will be adecades or mo

rements of acte the magnitudcation will occuor a few decade

ONITORING (

nswering the qn areas of highe

cts.

ants via change

re moderate.

ants via changere significant.

erature accounst sensitive pla

te that plants ve than those r

thering rates ucable to vulnew base cations

thering rates uhigh for the moulting in under

g capacity of sodeposition it wdepleted.

g capacity of sodeposition it we depleted.

tual base catiode and extent s predicted, anre. .

tual base catiode or extent ofur within only aes.

EEM) PROG

uestion requirest predicted c

es in soil

es in soil

ts for the nts.

at Kitimat reported in

used in this rable areas .

used in this ost restimates

oils is large will take

oils is small will take

n loss of soil nd will take

n loss f soil a few

GRAM

56

res critical

PROGRAM

Pathway orReceptor

Lakes and Streams anAquatic Bio

The folloSO2 EEM A1. Does

Modeon huThe athe aKMP if CALCondanswcalibr

PLAN FOR 20

Quest

d ta

W1. Hdeposmodeextenload e

W2. Hwith pactuato wh

Are adMOE to reccritica

Whatthe in

W3. Wand spotencan bsamp

W4. Ifvulnesafelyshow thesetheir f

wing paragrProgram.

s the CALPUF

elled estimauman healthaccuracy of tccuracy of tSO2 concentLPUFF overeducting updawer questionsrated tool w

KM

13 TO 2018

tion

How do assumpsition and surfaels affect the pt and magnituexceedance po

How many of tpredicted pH clly acidify undehat extent?

dditional lakes(MOE‐3 and Mceive depositioal load?

is the water cnsensitive lakes

What species, aize of fish are pntially vulnerabe safely accessling?

f some of the prable lakes thay accessed for fan acidifying t lakes also shofish communit

raphs summ

FF model acc

tes of post‐Kh and vegetathe SO2 conche assessmetrations, impestimated SOated CALPUFs regarding S

which can be

P SO2 ENVIR

ptions in ace water redicted de of critical ost‐ KMP?

he 7 lakes hange >0.1 er KMP, and

s suggested by MOE‐6) likely on in excess of

hemistry of s?

age classes, present in the ble lakes that sed for fish

potentially at can be fish sampling trend, then do ow changes in ties?

arize why ea

curately pred

KMP concenation, and alscentrations pent for all of pacts on recO2 concentraFF modellingSO2 exposurused to exp

RONMENTAL

Hypotheses

H1. Predictexceedoverest

H2. Predictexceed

H1. Change(acidific

modifie

H2. Changeless tha

H3. Changegreater

Establish baimplementa

H1. No loss

H2. Loss of

ach of these

dict post‐KM

ntrations of Sso drive deppredicted in the receptoeptors may ations, impac using post‐re impacts, aplore mitigat

EFFECTS MO

s

ted extent and dances are reastimates.

ted extent and/dances are und

es in water checation) are sim

ed ESSA/DFO p

es in water chean predicted.

es in water cher than predicte

aseline conditiation of KMP.

s of any fish sp

f some fish spe

questions is

MP SO2 air co

SO2 are usedposition estimthe CALPUFors. If CALPUbe greater tcts may be lKMP estimaand provide ion options.

ONITORING (

magnitude of sonable, or are

/or magnitudeerestimates.

emistry post‐KMmilar to SSWC a

predictions.

emistry post‐KM

emistry post‐KMed.

ons of fish com

ecies.

ecies.

s important

oncentration

d to assess emates (explaFF model theUFF underestthan predictess than pretes of SO2 coa reliable, e.

EEM) PROG

e

e of

MP and

MP are

MP are

mmunities prio

to answer in

ns?

effects of sulained undererefore affectimated posted; alternatedicted. oncentrationmpirically‐

GRAM

57

or to

n the

phur D1). cts t‐ively

n will

PROGRAM

D1. Does

Modeexceeconceovereupdaquestreliab

D2. Wha

Base load absenconsedepoexcee

HH1. How

Expla

HH2. Wh

Respto share athesewill berestric

V1. Valid

Relatdirecdamaexpec

V2. How lakes and

IndireSensiratesbedro

PLAN FOR 20

s the CALPUF

elled estimaedances for entrations, iestimated thted CALPUFtions regardble, empirica

t are the bas

cation depoanalyses (annce of any reervatively asosition will inedance.

w conservat

ained under

hat is the pea

iratory respoort‐term pevailable is a e shorter‐tere used to evaction events,

dation of the

tes to A1. Cot exposure tage surveys cted.

healthy is ved streams so

ect impacts itivity analys (as opposedock south of

KM

13 TO 2018

FF model acc

tes of post‐Ksoils and lakmpacts on rhese concentF modelling ing exceedaally‐calibrate

se cation de

osition in thend more so feliable estimssumed thatncrease soil c

ive is the CA

A1.

ak‐to‐mean

onses in indiaks of SO2 ex1‐hour averrm peaks mualuate how clobut will not i

e dispersion m

onclusions abto SO2 basedare not done

egetation inouth of Lakel

on vegetatioses of soil crid to averagef Lakelse Lak

P SO2 ENVIR

curately pred

KMP sulphukes and streareceptors matrations theusing post‐K

ance of criticed tool whic

position valu

e study regioor soil than

mates, the so base cationcritical loads

ALPUFF mode

relationship

ividuals withxposure. Therage. Therefoust be determose SO2 meastself be an in

model – are

bout impactd on evidence in the area

sites with plse Lake?

on from soil itical loads be weatheringke could exce

RONMENTAL

dict post‐KM

r depositionams. If CALPay be greaten impacts mKMP estimatal loads andh can be use

ues in the st

on is not knowater analyoil critical loan deposition s and may po

el in predicti

p for shorter

h restrictive e shortest tiore the relatmined in ordsurements fit dicator.)

we looking i

s (predictedce of vegetatas where hig

predicted exc

acidificationbased on ming rates) suggeed the soil

EFFECTS MO

MP total sulp

n are used toPUFF undereer than predimay be less thtes of sulphud acidificatioed to explore

tudy region?

own. This is iysis, describead analyses fwas zero, motentially re

ions of SO2 le

duration exp

airway diseame period otionship betder to accurwith air mod

in the right p

d to be low (gtion damageghest concen

ceedance of

n are predictnimum estimgest that a fecritical load

ONITORING (

phur depositi

o predict critstimated poicted; and if han predicteur deposition impacts, ae mitigation

?

mportant foed further unfor the tech

meaning thatduce estima

evels?

posures?

ases are moover which mtween 1‐houately predicdelling used to

place?

green)) on ve may be undntrations of

critical load

ted to be lowmates of minew areas in qpost‐KMP (f

EEM) PROG

ion?

tical load ost‐KMP SO2

CALPUFF ed. Conductin will answeand provide options.

or the criticander W1). Innical assessmt any base caates of

st closely linmonitoring dur averages at the risk. (To predict air

vegetation frderestimateSO2 are

ds of soil and

w (green). neral weathequartz dioritfurther

GRAM

58

ing er a

al n the ment ation

nked data and This

rom ed if

d/or

ering te

PROGRAM

expladetecdeple

V3. Are pcritical lo

As foexplic

V4. Do pldepositio

If theconceto shvariatwith may other

S1. Are ewhere la

This qCriticnumbstudyimpoprediminimexceeto bestudyinformreach

S2. Whatwhen wo

The mproviup thimpa

PLAN FOR 20

ained under ct any indireetion or alum

plants of puboads?

r V2, but apcitly focusing

lants at Kitimon) fall withi

e only plantsentrations gow damage tion in the liSO2 concenthave a greatr studies to d

estimates of kes have low

question abocal loads for ber (four to y region wheortant for twicted using emum weatheedance for ae moderate (y region. It wmative estimh various thr

t is the curreould this bas

mass balancede informathe base catiocts of excee

KM

13 TO 2018

S1). Extensioect soil‐mediminum toxic

blic importan

plicable to eg on plants o

mat that havn the range

showing symreater than based on litterature. If htrations loweter sensitivitderive dama

average weaw base catio

out weathersoils were esix) soil pits ere weatherio bedrock tyestimates of ering rates. Ta very small a(yellow), as twould howevmates of excresholds (des

ent bufferinge cation rese

e models usetion on whenon reservoir dances.

P SO2 ENVIR

on of existinated effectsity in the roo

nce showing

exceedancesof particular

ve unknown of variation

mptoms of dliterature thterature threhowever plaer than literaty than thoseage threshol

athering ratns)?

ring rates forstimated duwithin eaching rates areypes in an araverage weThis work warea near ththe potentiaver increase eedance riskscribed unde

g capacity (bervoir be use

ed to determn exceedancwill provide

RONMENTAL

ng vegetations on vegetatioting zone o

g symptoms i

s elsewhere tr value to sta

sensitivity to in the litera

direct impachresholds foesholds), theants show syature threshe plants usedds in the lite

tes by bedroc

r base cationuring the tec bedrock cate underestimrea south of eathering ratould likely nhe smelter, oally affected confidence ks, includinger S2).

base cation ped up?

mine whethece will occur.a temporal

EFFECTS MO

n surveys toion (i.e., symof plants).

in areas with

than just soakeholders.

to SO2 and asature?

cts are foundr damage (i.en all plants ymptoms of holds, then itd in dose‐reerature.

ck type valid

ns arises for hnical assestegory, thermated. Answf Lakelse Laktes, but is prnot change tor the overalarea is a verin the assesg how long it

pool) of the s

er critical loa. Estimating element to

ONITORING (

o these areasmptoms of ba

h highest ex

uth of Lakel

ssociated po

d in locatione., one woufall within tdirect impact suggests thesponse expe

d for vulnera

all critical lossment usingrefore there wering this quke where excredicted usinhe predictioll impact catry small percssment, and t would take

soils in excee

ads will be ehow long it the interpre

EEM) PROG

s would helpase cation

xceedances o

se Lake, and

ollutants (aci

s with SO2 uld expect plhe range of cts in locatiohat some plaeriments and

able areas (e

oad studies. g a limited are areas inuestion is mceedance is ng estimatesons of high tegory predicentage of tprovide moe for soils to

eded areas, a

exceeded dowill take to etation of th

GRAM

59

p to

of soil

d

idic

ants

ons ants d

e.g.,

the ost not s of

cted he re

and

not use e

PROGRAM

S3. Whatdepositio

There(queshelp unde

W1. Howand mag

Predithe aloadszero, conceorigindepoacid‐sproposever

empi

W2. Howacidify unMOE‐6) linsensitiv

Thereimpaprovimodeprediacidifreducincre

W3. Whalakes tha

This isensiimpoonly consi

PLAN FOR 20

t is the rate oon?

e are assumpstions S1 andto understar potential f

w do assumpgnitude of cri

ictions of sunswer to D1s analyses inbut implicitentration in nal pre‐indusosition (quessensitive lakortion of lakral years of m

rically estim

w many of thnder KMP, alikely to receve lakes?

e are variousct predictiondes a high leerate), but leicted exceedfication will ce the impacase the imp

at is the currat can be saf

s importanttive lakes wortant these limited empdered in the

KM

13 TO 2018

of soil acidif

ptions in thed S2). Monitnd the time future acidif

ptions in depitical load ex

lphur depos1 is importan the technicly capture athe lake, anstrial base ction D2) coukes, but are ukes and lake monitoring w

mate an F‐fac

he seven poteand to what eeive depositio

s assumptions. Existing ievel of confiess confidendance and pHhelp to increct category fact category

rent status ofely accessed

because theill depend ofish commupirical informe EEM plan (

P SO2 ENVIR

fication mea

e depositiontoring soils tto depletionication.

osition and sxceedance p

ition affect ent. Similar toal assessmeny base catid ascribe allation concenuld affect theunlikely to aarea in the swater chemi

ctor for each

entially vulnextent? Are on in excess

ns in the depnformation dence in thence in the maH change). Mease confidefrom modery beyond mo

of the fish cod for fish sam

e acceptabiln the fish conities are to

mation on fisWest Lake a

RONMENTAL

sured as loss

and soil mohat are poten of base cat

surface wateost‐KMP?

estimates ofo the soil critnt also assuon depositiol of this to mntrations ([Be estimates ffect the extstudy area isstry, if [SO4*

h lake ([BC*

erable lakesadditional laof critical lo

position andand sensitive potential eagnitude of Monitoring laence in modeate (yellow)oderate (yell

mmunities inmpling?

ity of impactommunities o stakeholdeh compositioand End Lake

EFFECTS MO

s of base cat

odels used toentially suscetion pools in

er models af

f both criticatical loads anmed that deon as part ofmineral weatBC*]0 ). Chanof critical lotent of exces insensitive*] has chang

*] / [SO4*])

s with predicakes suggesoad? What is

d surface wavity analysesextent of aciacidificationakes that arel prediction to low (greelow).

in the subset

ts of possiblpresent in thrs. Prior to ton for two oe). Having a

ONITORING (

tions owing

o derive impeptible to acn regions of e

ffect the pre

al loads and nalyses, the eposition of f the measuthering in thges in base cads and excedance beca to acidificatged, it will be

).

cted pH chanted by MOE s the chemic

ater models us (described dification (lon (i.e., observe potentiallyns. Monitorien), but are

t of potentia

le acidificatiohose lakes, athe EEM Proof the 10 lakbaseline is e

EEM) PROG

to acidic

pact predictiocidification wexceedance

edicted exten

exceedancewater criticbase cationsred base cate calculationcation eedance forause such a tion. After e easy to

nge > 0.1 act(MOE‐3 andcal status of

used to deriunder W1) ow to ved versus y susceptibleng results counlikely to

ally vulnerab

on in the aciand how gram there es being essential for

GRAM

60

ons will

nt

es, so al s was tion n of

r high

tually d

ve

e to ould

le

id‐

was

PROGRAM

evalugivenin foutheserow 4

W4. If soshow an

This fshowundeinsenor otin susexpla

PLAN FOR 20

uating potenn access issuur of the seve field survey4 of Table 22

ome of the poacidifying tr

follows fromw pH declinesr W2), then nsitive lakes her factors).sceptible surained under

KM

13 TO 2018

tial future ces. Samplingven EEM lakeys (and othe2 in Appendi

otentially vurend, then do

m W2 and W3s sufficient tit is appropin the future. This would rface watersW1. Therefo

P SO2 ENVIR

hanges (W4g in the fall oes that coulder available iix D of this d

ulnerable lako these lakes

3. If some ofto potentiallyriate to resue (to determprovide gres, but is unlikore the impa

RONMENTAL

4), where sucof 2013 provd be safely anformation document.

kes that can s also show

f the lakes wy affect fish urvey the fishmine whetheeater confidekely to affecact category

EFFECTS MO

ch a baselinevided informccessed for on fish popu

be safely acchanges in t

which can be(i.e., a pH dh compositior changes wence in the act estimates is not expec

ONITORING (

e can be safemation on fisfish samplinulations) are

ccessed for fitheir fish com

e safely sampecline >0.30on of the sewere related actual magnof the extencted to chan

EEM) PROG

ely establishh communitng. The resule summarize

ish samplingmmunities?

pled for fish 0 units, evalunsitive and to acidificatitude of impnt of impactsnge.

GRAM

61

hed ties lts of ed in

g

uated

tion pacts s, as

P

T

PathRece

Atm

HumHea

Vege

Soils

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Table 20. Alignme

hway or eptor

Question

mosphere A1. Doesconcent

D1. Doessulphur

D2. Wharegion?

man lth

HH1. HoSO2 leve

HH2. Whexposure

Is the inc

etation V1. Validright pla

V2. Howof CLs of

V3. Are pwith hig

V4. Do pdepositio

Is the inc

s S1. Are evulnerab

OR 2013 TO 2018

ent of key perfor

n (those with bold nu

s CALPUFF accuratelyrations?

s the CALPUFF modedeposition?

at are the base cation

ow conservative is thels?

hat is the peak‐to‐mees?

creased SO2 having a

dation of the dispersce?

w healthy is vegetatiof soil and/or lakes so

plants of public impohest exceedances of

plants at Kitimat withon fall within the ran


estimates of weatherble areas (e.g. where

mance and inform

umbers were identifi

y represent post‐KM

el accurately predict p

n deposition values in

e CALPUFF model in

ean relationship for s

an impact on populat

ion model – are we lo

on in sites with predicuth of Lakelse Lake?

ortance showing symsoil critical loads?

h unknown sensitivitynge of variation in the

an impact on vegetat

ring rates by bedrocklakes have low base

mative indicators

ed in the STAR)

P SO2 air

post‐KMP total

n the study

predictions of

shorter duration

tion health?

ooking in the

cted exceedance

mptoms in areas

y to acidic e literature?

ion?

k type valid for cations)?

KMP SO2 E

s with the questio

SO2 concentration

S dep

osition

Base cation dep

osition

Predictedannual#ofSO

2‐

NVIRONMENTAL

ons that the SO2 E

Key performance

Predicted annual # of SO

2‐

associated

respiratory responses

Visible vegetation injury cau

sed

by SO

2

S content in Hemlock needles

Atm

osphericSdeposition&CL

L EFFECTS MONIT

EEM Program wil

e indicators and infor

Atm

ospheric S deposition & CL

exceedan

ce in

soil

Long‐term

soil acidification

attributable to S dep

osition

Magnitude of base cation pools

Time to depletion of

TORING (EEM)

ll answer.

rmative indicators

pexchangeable cation pools

Base cation weathering rate

Atm

ospheric S dep

osition & CL

exceed

ance in

water

Waterchemistry‐acidification

PROGRAM

62

Water chemistry

acidification

Fish presence / absence per

specie on sen

sitive lakes

Episodic pH change on Anderson

creek

Amphibians

P

PathRece

LakeStreAqu Biot

PROGRAM PLAN FO

hway or eptor

Question

S2. Whathe soils

S3. Whacations o

Is the inc

es and ams and atic ta

W1. Howaffect pr

W2. a) Hactually

b) Are adlikely to

c) What biologica

W3. Whvulnerab

W4. If sodo they

Is the incon aquat

What is t

OR 2013 TO 2018

n (those with bold nu

t is the current buffe in exceeded areas?

t is the rate of soil acowing to acidic depo


w do assumptions in redicted CL exceedan

How many of the 7 laacidify under KMP, a

dditional lakes suggereceive deposition in

is the chemical statual program?

at is the status of fishble lakes that can be

ome potentially vulnealso show changes in

creased SO2 having atic biota?

the frequency and m

umbers were identifi

ering capacity (base c

cidification, measuresition?

an impact on soils?

deposition and surfance?

kes with predicted pand to what extent?

ested by MOE (MOE‐3n excess of critical loa

us of insensitive lakes

h communities in thesafely accessed for f

erable lakes show ann their fish communit

an impact on lakes an

magnitude of episodic

ed in the STAR)

cation pool) of

ed as loss of base

ace water models

H change >0. 1

3 and MOE‐6) ad?

s used in the

e potentially ish sampling?

n acidifying trend, ties?

nd streams, and

c events?

KMP SO2 E

SO2 concentration

S dep

osition

Base cation dep

osition

Predictedannual#ofSO

2‐

NVIRONMENTAL

Key performance

Predicted annual # of SO

2‐

associated

respiratory responses

Visible vegetation injury cau

sed

by SO

2

S content in Hemlock needles

Atm

osphericSdeposition&CL

L EFFECTS MONIT

e indicators and infor

Atm

ospheric S deposition & CL

exceedan

ce in

soil

Long‐term

soil acidification

attributable to S dep

osition

Magnitude of base cation pools

Time to depletion of

TORING (EEM)

rmative indicators

pexchangeable cation pools

Base cation weathering rate

Atm

ospheric S dep

osition & CL

exceed

ance in

water

Waterchemistry‐acidification

PROGRAM

63

Water chemistry

acidification

Fish presence / absence per

specie on sen

sitive lakes

Episodic pH change on Anderson

creek

Amphibians

PROGRAM

Appen Presencevegetatio

A

A

Co

D

Dsp

Ep

Ly

Mfa

P

R

R

R

Sear

Sysn

V

Vbh

V

Note thaabove (w

Sources:

BC eFlora

Flagler, RPA: A

Pojar, J. aWash

PLAN FOR 20

ndix B. C

e/absence ofon injury fro

melanchier a

ralia nudicau

ornus stolonif

Disporum hook

Dryopteris exppreading woo

pilobium ang

ycopodium cl

Menziesia ferralse azalea)

teridium aqui

osa acicularis

ubus parviflo

ubus spectab

enecio triangrrow‐leaved g

ymphoricarponowberry)

Vaccinium alas

Vaccinium memlueberry; blacuckleberry)

Vaccinium ova

t some specwhich were o

a (http://ww

R.B. 1998. ReAir & Waste M

and A. MacKhington, Ore

KM

13TO 2018

Checklist

f the followim SO2:

alnifolia (Saska

ulis (wild sarsa

fera (red‐osie

keri (Hooker's

pansa (spiny wod fern)

ustifolium (fir

avatum (runn

ruginea (fool's

ilinum (brack

s (prickly wild

rus (thimbleb

bilis (salmonb

ularis (arrowgroundsel)

os albus (com

skaense (Alas

mbranaceumck huckleberr

alifolium (ova

cies may locaobtained from

ww.geog.ubc

ecognition oManagemen

Kinnon (eds.)egon and Ala

P SO2 ENVIR

t of Plan

ng species w

atoon berry)

aparilla,)

er dogwood)

s fairybells)

wood fern;

reweed)

ning club‐mos

s huckleberry

en fern)

d rose)

berry)

erry)

leaf ragwort;

mmon

ska blueberry

m (black ry; thinleaf

l‐leaf blueber

ally be knowm BC eFlora

c.ca/biodiver

f Air Pollutiont Associatio

) 1994. Plantaska. Lone Pi

RONMENTAL

nts Poten

will be noted

ss)

y,

)

rry)

wn by differe).

rsity/eflora/

on Injury to Von.

ts of Coastaine Publishin

EFFECTS MO

ntially S

d during regu

Vicia Americ(American v

Abies amabifir)

Abies lasioca

Acer glabrum

Alnus crispa

Alnus tenuif

Betula papy

Crataegus d

Pinus contorpine)

Populus tremtrembling as

Populus trich

Prunus pens

Prunus virgi

Sorbus scop

Sorbus sitch

Tsuga heter

ent common

/) accessed S

Vegetation:

l British Colung, 527 pp.

ONITORING (

ensitive

ular visual in

cana Vicia Amvetch)

ilis (amabilis f

arpa (subalpi

m (Douglas m

a (green alder

folia (mounta

yrifera (paper

douglasii (blac

rta (lodgepol

muloides (quaspen)

hocarpa (blac

sylvanica (pin

iniana (choke

ulina (wester

hensis (Sitka m

rophylla (west

names than

September 9

A Pictorial A

umbia: Inclu

EEM) PROG

e to SO2

nspections fo

mericana

fir; Pacific silv

ne fir)

maple)

r)

in alder)

birch)

ck hawthorne

e pine; shore

aking aspen;

ck cottonwoo

cherry)

e cherry)

rn mountain‐a

mountain‐ash

tern hemlock

n those listed

9, 2013.

Atlas. Pittsbu

ding

GRAM

64

or

ver

e)

e

od)

ash)

)

k)

d

urgh,

PROGRAM

Appenand A The quan5 to 8.6‐7

threshold

Likelihoodefinitio

A – Almo

B – Likely

C – Poss

D – Unlik

E – Very

Quantitat

A – Almost

Predicted

depositionmeq/m2/yCL

Quantitat1 ‐ Minor

<5 % of stulakes excee

A

0 sampled exceed CL

AN

Lakelse Laknot exceed

PLAN FOR 20

ndix C. QAquatic B

ntitative thre of the STARds for pH, AN

od (as per n below)

ost Certain

y

ible

kely

Unlikely

tive definition

t Certain B –

n 10 r above

Pre0 toabo

tive definition2

udy area ed CL

5la

ND

streams 0e

ND

ke does d CL

Ln

KM

13TO 2018

QuantitaBiota

esholds for lR (ESSA et al.NC and SO4

1 – Minor

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Low

Low

ns of the five

– Likely

edicted deposito 10 meq/m2/yove CL

ns of the five C2 ‐ Medium

5‐10 % of studyakes exceed CL

AND

0 sampled streaxceed CL

AND

akelse Lake donot exceed CL

P SO2 ENVIR

ative Thr

akes and str. 2013), and are provide

Cons

2 – Medi

High

High

Modera

Low

Low

Likelihood lev

C – Poss

tion yr

Predicte0 to 10 below C

Consequence3 ‐ Ser

y area L

>10‐15area la

ams 1‐2 saexcee

oes Lakelsnot ex

RONMENTAL

resholds

reams and aare reprodud in Table 27

sequence (as

um 3 – S

Crit

H

ate Mod

Mod

Mod

vels:

sible

ed deposition meq/m2/yr CL

e levels: rious

5 % of study akes exceed CL

OR

mpled streamd CL

AND

se Lake does xceed CL

EFFECTS MO

s for Lak

quatic biotauced below. 7 of Append

per definition

erious

4

tical

igh

derate

derate M

derate M

D – Unlikely

Predicted de10 to20 meqbelow CL

4 ‐Major

L >15‐25 % oarea lakes

O

s 3‐4 sampleexceed CL

AN

Lakelse Laknot exceed

ONITORING (

kes and S

a were specifExamples of

dix H.

ns below)

4 – Major

Critical

Critical

High

Moderate

Moderate

y E –

eposition q/m2/yr

Prmm

5

of study exceed CL

>la

OR

ed streams 5e

ND

ke does d CL

LC

EEM) PROG

Streams

fied in Tablesf lake specif

5 – Catastro

Critical

Critical

Critical

Moderat

Moderat

– Very Unlikel

redicted deposore than 20 eq/m2/yr belo

5 ‐ Catastrophic

>25 % of study akes exceed CL

OR

5+ sampled streexceed CL

OR

akelse Lake exCL

GRAM

65

s

s 8.6‐

fic

ophic

te

te

y

sition

w CL

c

area L

eams

xceeds

PROGRAM

Figure 9

Figure 9. C

PLAN FOR 20

shows pH le

Cumulative frshowingvalue is

KM

13TO 2018

evels at whic

requency distg percent redindicated by

P SO2 ENVIR

h biologicall

tribution of muction in spethe solid bar

RONMENTAL

ly significant

minimum pH vcies along a p.) From: Eilers

EFFECTS MO

t change is e

values for fielpH continuums et al. 1984.

ONITORING (

expected in a

ld observatiom. (The media

EEM) PROG

aquatic biota

ns of aquatic al minimum p

GRAM

66

a.

taxa, pH

PROGRAM

Appen Rating ofthe Watedetermin The follo

1. D2. D3. Fo4. A

se The relatconsideresensitivethis inforapprecia The resureceptorprotectin Table 21.

Criteria

1. Accesuse byof roaresidelicencirrigat

2. Recrehikingsnow

3. Lake sgenerdivers

27 Joe De G

PLAN FOR 20

ndix D. L

f the 10 vulner chemistryne the relativ

wing methoDetermine thDocument thor each criteAssign an oveensitive lake

tive rating ofed, recogniz lakes, but armation wasbly from the

lts of this rat‐based mitigng lakes of p

Criteria for ra

ssibility and ny people (pread and trails fences on shorces; drinking wtion or livesto

eational valueg, cross countmobiling, can

surface area, ral indicator osity, habitat c

Gisi and Jeff Lou

KM

13TO 2018

Lake Rat

nerable lakesy KPI (describve rating of t

od was used he rating crite criteria foerion, assignerall rating Les, across all

f each lake wzing that a laa low relative available, he ratings alre

ting exercisegation thresharticular pub

ating of 10 la

on‐recreationesence/absenfor access; reline; water water, industock use)

e (e.g. anglingtry skiing, noeing)

which is a of fish biomasconnectivity a

ugh, FLNRO.

P SO2 ENVIR

ting – M

s (Figure 6) ibed in Sectiothese lakes,

in rating theeria (Table 2r each lake ( each lake aow, Mediumcriteria (Tab

within the 13ke could have rating withhowever, theeady assigne

e will help inhold (describblic interest

kes with eithe

Source

nal ce

rial,

Go Loc

rec Sp

con Ob

act Pro

g, Loc An Re

ss, and

STA BC

RONMENTAL

ethod a

s needed foon 6). This apand present

e lakes: 21). (Table 22). rating of Lom, or High foble 23 and T

34 lakes > 1 ve a High rehin the overae ratings wited when look

nform decisiobed in Sectio.

er CL exceeda

es Sought for

oogle Earth ancal MOE / FLNcreational groreadsheet consultation witbservations oftual samplingovincial wate

cal MOE / FLNgling / recreacreational ma

AR Watershed A

EFFECTS MO

nd Resu

r determininppendix dests the result

ow, Mediumor each lake wTable 24).

ha in size wilative ratingall study arehin this largking just at t

ons regardinon 6) is reac

ance or predi

the Informat

nd BC WatersNRO fish biolooups; traditiompleted by Sth Fred Seilerf existing traig of lakes r license data

NRO fish bioloational groupap for Northe

Atlas, 2012

ONITORING (

ults

ng mitigationcribes the mts.

, or High (Tawithin the s

ithin the stug within the sa. For the feer context dthe 10 vulne

ng lake liminhed, with th

icted pH > 0

tion

shed Atlas maogists27 and anal knowledgShauna Benner l, road, and A

abase

ogists s ern BC

EEM) PROG

n thresholdsmethod used

able 22). et of 10 acid

dy area wasset of acid‐ew criteria wdid not differerable lakes.

ng if the he intention

0.1.

aps angling / ge ett of Limnote

ATV access fro

GRAM

67

s for d to

d‐

s

where r

of

ek in

om

PROGRAM

Criteria

food sareas

4. Sustahistorsuitablife hisignifkokanbesidspecie

5. Lake ianadrspawnrearincultur

6. Influeacids3

7. Estimand m

28 Comparehighly, simore divto contri

29 Presencepresent n

30 If lake nalower fis

PLAN FOR 20

supply for do28

inable fish spry of stockingbility; unique stories (incluicant populatnee); other unes fish (includes)

is habitat useromous salmoning areas upng by juvenilerally importan

ence of DOC a30

ated mid‐ranmax residence

ed to small laknce they will hverse fish habitbute forage fise of species in now; absence oaturally has a lh species diver

KM

13TO 2018

wnstream

pecies present; stocking fish species oding genetications, i.e. nique biota ding rare

d by on for accessipstream or foes; supports nt food fisher

and organic

nge lake volume time

es of similar prhave more totatats and speciesh for downstreFISS indicates of species in FIow pH due to rsity and likely

P SO2 ENVIR

Source

t;

or ally

STA Fis DF Loc 20

Lak Pre

pre

ing r

ry

DF FIS Loc Pre

act

Froret

Infprecur

me Fro

roductivity whal fish biomass es compositioneam piscivorouthat species wISS does not morganic acids (lower fish pro

RONMENTAL

es Sought for

AR heries InformO informatiocal MOE / FLN13 fish samplke), LAK012, Lesence of lakeesence is unk

O informatioSS cal MOE / FLNesence/absentual lake sam

om STAR Secttrospective prferred % of poe‐industrial tirves)

om Table 25

ich contain fish(i.e., total biom, are more likeus fish. was present at omean that it is nespecially a pHoduction.

EFFECTS MO

the Informat

mation Summn on salmon NRO fish biololing on presenLAK023 (Wese inflows andknown

n on salmon

NRO fish biolonce of inflow pling in 2013

tion 9.4.1.2.3 redictions of otential fish smes, and cur

h, large lakes wmass = biomasely to have inle

one time, but snot present noH less than 5 –

ONITORING (

tion

ary System (Fdistribution ogists nce/absence st Lake) and Ld outflows, fo

distribution

ogists; First Nstreams obse3

– based on aoriginal pre‐ispecies that wrrently (based

with fish are gess / area * areaets and outlets

species may orw. see Figure 9),

EEM) PROG

FISS)29

for LAK006 (LAK044 r lakes where

Nations erved during

anion contentndustrial pHwere present d on literature

enerally rated a), are likely to, and are more

r may not be

this would res

GRAM

68

End

e fish

t and

in e

more have e likely

sult in

P

T

Criteria

1. ACCESAND NONRECREATUSE BY P

Relative

Notes on

2. RECREATVALUE

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Table 22. Criteriahy

LAK01

SIBILITY N‐TIONAL EOPLE

ATV accesand existitrail into l

good accefrom ski t

No resideusing it fodrinking water16

No irrigator livestocuse; possisilviculturactivities1

e rating: Mediu

n Rating: Road acce

TIONAL Ski trails1;roads preto lakes n& south olake, bothwhich appto be connectedLAK012 by

OR 2013 TO 2018

results for the 1drologically conn

12 LAK022

ss ng lake13

ess rails1

ences or

ion ck ible ral 15

No road access10

Accessibilitypoor1; not accessible2

um Low

ess lakes are rated H

; sent orth of this h of pear

d to y

Possibly fishing, hikinsnowshoeincross countrskiing, snowmobiling 15

0 lakes vulnerablnected to End Lak

End Lake (LAK006)

y is

ATV access and existing trail into lake13

Can get boat into lake on ATV trailer13; no official boat access15

Good access from ski trails1

No shoreline residences present16

No irrigation or livestock use15

Possible silvicultural activities15

Medium

igh; good ATV access

ng, g, ry w‐

Ski trails1

Definite ATV, snowmobile use; fishing, boating, photography, hiking, snowshoeing, hunting; and

e lakes, as well ake (LAK006).)

West Lake (LAK023)

3

1

Road access3,11

No shoreline residences16 Forestry campsite on east side of lake (where the road meets the lake), definite use of this area15

No residences, no water licenses, no irrigation or livestock15

West side of lake and creek has been logged –have since had a hard time getting conifers to grow 15

High

s lakes are rated Med

Campsite beside lake1; forest rec‐reation site7

Trails around lake; ATVs use old forestry roads around it; used for

KMP SO2 E

s their relative ra

LAK028

No road access10; not accessible2,15

Claque Mountain Trail (hiking & snowmobiling) in the vicinity, but isn’t clear if it runs near this lake5,6,7

Likely no water users15

Na

Pan~aintoinsoaloro

Nrev

Lalawsisolecothafq

Low

dium; and the rest ar

Possibly hiking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing and snowmobiling 1,5

H

ENVIRONMENTA

atings. Sources ar

LAK042

No road ccess10;

oor to fair ccess1,2; earest road is 200 m away, llowing an nflatable boat o be packed n3; may be ome trails long old ogging oads15

No shoreline esidences isible3

ake has very arge wood waste dump ite located outh of it; eachate oming from his site may ffect water uality 15

Roalargon hwithon aandto la

Resthe thehavfield

Watin laresithe

Low

re rated Low. Liming

Hiking 15 Swiskiin15

AL EFFECTS MON

re listed below th

LAK044 LA

ad access10;ge pull out highway h 50m walk a well worn d wide trail ake shore13

idence to north of lake may

ve a septic d1

ter licence ake for idence to north7

Inaccemounlake3

Possibtrails 1

High L

is most feasible in la

mming, ng, skating

Hiking

NITORING (EEM)

he table. (Note: L

AK047 LAK0

essible tain

ble hiking 15

No road access10;accessib

Low Low

kes with boat access

g 15 No informatbut isolaand lackaccess (criterionsuggestsrecreatiovalue

) PROGRAM

69

AK012 is

054 LAK056

; not le2

No road access10; naccessible2

w Low

s.

tion, ation of

n #1) s low onal

No informatiobut isolatioand lack ofaccess (criterion #suggests lorecreationavalue

6

ot 2

n, on f

#1) ow al

P

Criteria

Relative

Notes on

3. LAKE SURFACE

Relative

Notes on

4. SUSTAFISH PRES

PROGRAM PLAN FO

LAK01

creeks2

ATV, snowmobile usfishing, boating, photographiking, snowshoehunting; lhas a traparound it

1

e rating: High

n rating: Lakes with

E AREA 2.3 ha

2,9

Ranks 57 among 13lakes >1 h

(in the top60%)

e rating: Low

n Rating: Of the 134third largelargest lakrespectiveseemed a

INABLE SENCE

EEM sampin Oct 201using RIC small mesnets confirmedpresence cutthroat trout, dolvarden, cothree‐spinsticklebac

OR 2013 TO 2018

12 LAK022

w‐se;

phy,

eing, ikely pline 15

h Medium

h multiple known rec

34 ha

p

5.7ha 2,9

Ranks 28 among 134 lakes >1 ha

(just below the top 20%

Medium

4 lakes in the study aest lake (Kitelse Lakeke). Lakes within the ely). Other lakes wera reasonable distincti

pling 13 and sh gill

d of

ly oho, ne ck

Previously stocked (DFO)

1

Fish habitat inferred

14

Connection Coldwater Creek

1

Should be accessible tofreshwater fish based ostream gradients, although the

End Lake (LAK006)

probably is a trapline around it

15

High

creational uses are ra

%)

10.2 ha 2,9


(in the top 20%)

High

area >1 ha, Lakelse Lae, at 30.8 ha). Vulneratop 30 largest lakesre rated Low. Since 5on between Medium

to

o

n

ere

EEM sampling in Oct 2013 using RIC and small mesh gilnets confirmed presence of cutthroat trout, dolly varden, coho, three‐spine stickleback

West Lake (LAK023)

snowmobiling, hiking, angling, canoeing, hunting, and trapping; road to lake is not plowed in the winter so would be far for CC skiing15

High

ated High, lakes with

6.8 ha 2,9


(in the top 20%)

Medium

ake (1,374.4 ha) and able lakes within the were rated Medium51% of the 134 lakes m and Low.

l

Kokanee, cut‐throat caught 1990

1; coho

19894;

Chinook and cutthroat (no date)

4; coho,

Chinook, stickleback, cutthroat

2

EEM sampling using RIC and small mesh gill nets in Oct 2013 showed residualized

KMP SO2 E

LAK028

Medium

h a few possible recre

1.0 ha 2,9


(in the bottom 30%)

1

Rala

(i3

Low

Jesse Lake (1,166.6 htop 15 largest lakes (LAK022 and LAK023in the study area we

Accessibility to fish unknown, anadromous fish unlikely 2,15

BAafrfistg

Cpmregcooap

ENVIRONMENTA

LAK042

Medium

eational uses are rate

.5 ha 2,9

Ranks 92 mong 134 akes >1 ha

n the bottom 0%)

2.0

Ranamolake

(in t60%

Low

ha) are exceptionallyin the study area we3 (West Lake)), whichere less than 2 ha, are

BC Watershed Atlas infers ccessibility to reshwater sh based on tream radients

14

Current roduction

may be elatively low iven the high oncentration f organic cids and low H value

2

Was25 y(anebut all d

EEMin Ousinsmanetsno fpresno ioutfstre

AL EFFECTS MON

LAK044 LA

High Me

ed Medium, and lake

ha 2,9

nks 66 ong 134 es >1 ha

the top %)

1.6 ha

Ranksamonglakes >

(just utop 60

Low L

y large in surface areere rated High (only Wh were also larger theas significantly large

s stocked ~ years ago ecdotal) fish have died off

15

M sampling Oct 2013 ng RIC and all mesh gill s showed fish sent and inflow or flow eam

Not acto fish

Most none; ColdwCreek imporstreamLakelsWater

NITORING (EEM)

AK047 LAK0

edium Low

es with no known rec

a 2,9

83 g 134 >1 ha

under the 0%)

1.5 ha 2,9

Ranks 89among 1lakes >1

(just undtop 60%

Low Low

a, two orders of magWest Lake, which at an 5 ha, and ranked er than 5 ha (at least

ccessible h14

likely feeds

water – an rtant fish m in the se rshed

15

BC WateAtlas infaccessibfreshwatfish basestream gradient

Current productimay be relativelygiven theconcentrof organacids andnaturally

) PROGRAM

70

054 LAK056

w Low creational uses are Lo9

9 134 ha

der the )

1.8 ha 2,9

Ranks 72 among 134lakes >1 ha

(in the top 60%)

w Low

gnitude larger than th10.2 ha is the 14

th

28th and 24

th in area

double that size)

ershed ers ility to ter ed on

ts14

ion

y low e high ration nic d y low

BC WatersAtlas infersaccessibilitfreshwaterfish based stream gradients

14

Current productionmay be relatively logiven the hconcentratof organic acids and naturally lo

6

ow.

4 a

he

,

hed s y to r on

4

n

ow high tion

ow

P

Criteria

Relative

Notes on

5. HAB ITBY ANADROSALMON

Relative

Notes on

6. INFLUEOF DOC AORGANIC

PROGRAM PLAN FO

LAK01

e rating: High

n Rating: LAK012, Eregardingrates Medand non‐fpresence rated her

TAT USE

MOUS

Presence coho confirmedEEM sampin 2013

e rating: High

n rating: Confirmatnot to be rated Low

ENCE AND C ACIDS

26% orgaions; est. industrial 5.74

2 (53%

potential species present

8);

current p5.64

2 (51%

potential species

OR 2013 TO 2018

12 LAK022

are no empirical observationof fish recorded in the Atlas forthis lake

14

Unknown, bthere could cutthroat present

15

h Medium

End Lake (LAK006), Wg fish composition. Codium. For the other fish habitat based onconfirmed by the Oce as Low), and 14 we

of

d by pling

Inferred14

h Medium

tion of the presence anadromous becaus

w.

nic pre‐pH % of fish

; H % of fish

35% organicions; est. preindustrial pH6.11

2 (77% o

potential fisspecies present

8);

current pH 5.92

2 (60% o

potential fisspecies

End Lake (LAK006)

s

r

but be

High

West Lake (LAK023) aonfirmed fish presenlakes, important infon stream gradients

14.

ct 2013 EEM fish samere rated unknown (i

Observed12

Presence of coho confirmed by EEM sampling in 2013

High

of anadromous salmse outflows are only e

c e‐H of h

of h

34% organic ions; est. pre‐industrial pH 6.02

2 (71% of

potential fish species present

8);

current pH 5.79

2 (54% of

potential fish species

West Lake (LAK023)

coho (to be confirmed with DNA analysis) plus three‐spine stickleback

Medium

nd LAK044 were samce in the presence oformation includes fish Of the 134 lakes >1

mpling), 76 have inferrncluding LAK044, wh

Observed12

Presence of residualized coho (to be confirmed with DNA) in EEM sampling in 2013

Medium

mon (coho) by samplinephemeral. Lakes wit


2 (64% of


8);

current pH 5.70

2 (52% of


KMP SO2 E

LAK028

Medium

mpled for fish in 2013f outflow streams rath observations in theha in the study area,red fish habitat (incluhich was subsequentl

Anadromous fish unlikely

15

In

Low

ng in 2013 results in th inferred fish acces


2 (54% of


8);

current pH 4.98

2 (26% of


8ioin4psppcu4psp

ENVIRONMENTA

LAK042

Medium

3 as part of the EEM Ptes High. Confirmed e Watershed Atlas fo, 11 lakes have obseruding the lakes ratedly confirmed by fish s

nferred14 No f

presEEMsamcrite

Medium

a High rating. Residussibility are rated Me

1% organic ons; est. pre‐ndustrial pH .92

2 (25% of

otential fish pecies resent

8);

urrent pH .68

2 (18% of

otential fish pecies

38%ionsindu5.80potespecprescurr5.40potespec

AL EFFECTS MON

LAK044 LA

Low L

Program, and these lfish presence with e

or observed fish habitrved fish habitat (incd here as Medium), 3sampling in 2013 to h

fish sent in M 2013 mpling (see erion #4)

Non‐h

No 15

Low L

ualized / resident cohedium. Lakes with co

% organic s; est. pre‐ustrial pH 02 (54% of

ential fish cies sent

8);

rent pH 02 (47% of

ential fish cies

10% oanionsorigina6.0

2

NITORING (EEM)

AK047 LAK0

pH 2

Low Medi

lakes have the highesphemeral presence otat12, and estimates oluding the lakes rate33 have non‐fish habihave no fish and the

habitat2 Inferred

Low Medi

ho were detected in nfirmation of no fish

organic s; est. al pH

61% orgions; estindustria4.67

2 (18

potentiaspecies present

8

current p4.59

2 (12

potentiaspecies

) PROGRAM

71

054 LAK056

pH 2

ium Medium

st level of certainty of outflows (West Laof inferred fish habitad here as High, with itat (including the lakrefore rated Low). 14 Inferred

14

ium Medium

West Lake, but appeh under criterion #4 a

anic t. pre‐al pH 8% of al fish

8); pH 2% of al fish

56% organions; est. pindustrial p4.56

2 (10%

potential fispecies present

8);

current pH4.5

2 (9% of

potential fispecies

6

m

ke) at fish kes

m

ar are

ic pre‐pH of ish

f ish

P

Criteria

Relative

Notes on

7. ESTIMAMIDRANGLAKE VOLMAXIMURESIDENCTIME

Relative

Notes on

S1

k

2

3

PROGRAM PLAN FO

LAK01

present8,

loss of 2%relative topre‐indusconditionpredictedfuture pH5.51

2 (48%

potential species present

8 f

loss of 5%relative topre‐induscondition

e rating: Mediu

n rating: A High ratto pollutioeffects. A

ATED GE LUME & UM CE

80,530 m

0.156 yrs

e rating: Low

n rating: Lakes withgreater thrated Low

Sources: 1 File “Lake Recceknowledge of fiel

2 STAR (ESSA et a

3 Google Earth m

OR 2013 TO 2018

12 LAK022

for a % o trial s); % of fish

for a % o trial s)

present8 for

loss of 17% relative to pre‐industriconditions); predicted future pH 5.542 (49% opotential fisspecies present

8 for

loss of 28% relative to pre‐industriconditions)

um Medium

ting is assigned to lakon). A Medium ratingLow rating is assigne3 580,128 m

3

2.616 yrs

Medium

h longer residence tihan 3 years are ratedw.

e Summary 14 Junld technicians wh

l. 2013)

ap

End Lake (LAK006)

r a

al

of h

r a

al

present8for a

loss of 17% relative to pre‐industrial conditions); predicted future pH 5.312 (46% of potential fish species present

8 for a

loss of 25% relative to pre‐industrial conditions)

Medium

kes where organic ang is assigned to lakesed to lakes that are d

584,232 m3

1.089 yrs

Medium

mes have a slower rad High. Lakes with ma

ne2013.xls” prepaho live in Terrace

West Lake (LAK023)

present8for a


8 for a


Medium

nions (i.e., natural aci with organic acid infdominated by organic

182,857 m3

0.758 yrs

Medium

ate of response to chaximum residence tim

ared by Limnotek

KMP SO2 E

LAK028

present8for a


8 for a


plorepcopfu4pspplorepco

Medium

idification) make up fluence (25‐50% orgac acids (> 50% organi

156,726 m3

1.273 yrs

1

1

Medium

hanges in acid loadingme between 1 and 3

k; information on

ENVIRONMENTA

LAK042

resent8 for a

oss of 7% elative to re‐industrial onditions); redicted uture pH .48

2 (9% of

otential fish pecies resent

8 for a

oss of 16% elative to re‐industrial onditions)

preslossrelapre‐conpredfutu4.86potespecpreslossrelapre‐con

Low M

< 25%, of the total aanic anions), where nic anions), and lakes

75,186 m3

.185 yrs

300

7.16

Medium

g, and will be more syears are rated Med

n access collected

AL EFFECTS MON

LAK044 LA

sent8for a

s of 7% ative to ‐industrial nditions); dicted ure pH 62 (24% of

ential fish cies sent

8 for a

s of 30% ative to ‐industrial nditions)

Medium H

nions (i.e., if they hanatural acidification were naturally acidif

0,832 m3

65 yrs

8,028

0.012

High L

suitable sites for limidium. Lakes with max

d from maps, Goo

NITORING (EEM)

AK047 LAK0

present8

loss of 6relative tpre‐induconditiopredictefuture p4.53

2 (10

potentiaspecies present

8

loss of 8relative tpre‐induconditio

High Low

ve a low pH, this is mis important in additfied prior to any poll

m3

yrs

77,707 m

0.058 yr

Low Low

ng. Lakes with maximximum residence tim

ogle Earth, and lo

) PROGRAM

72

054 LAK0568for a % to ustrial ns); ed H 0% of al fish

8 for a % to ustrial ns)

present8fo

loss of 1% relative to pre‐industrconditions)predicted future pH 4.44

2 (8% o

potential fispecies present

8 fo

loss of 2% relative to pre‐industrconditions)

w Low

more likely to be relation to any pollution ution sources.

m3

s

116,897 m

0.400 yrs

w Low

mum residence time e less than 1 year are

ocal

6

or a

rial );

of ish

or a

rial )

ted

3

e

P

4

i

5

6

(

7

8

9

1

w

1

1

1

1

1

1

PROGRAM PLAN FO

4 BC Fisheries Infon the database)

5 Kitimat recreati

6 Clague Mountai(http://www.recs

7 BC iMap 2.0 (htt

8 Eilers et al. (198

9 Field sampling d

10 Field sampling was collected in a

11 Christopher Pe

12 BC Watershed

13 Field notes from

14 BC MOE, 2011.

15 Mitch Drewes,

16 Observations d

OR 2013 TO 2018

ormation Summa

on trails map (htt

in Trail map siteimages.tca.go

tp://maps.gov.bc

84) Figure 1 show

data summarized

data summarizedan overflight and

rrin, Limnotek (e

Atlas

m ground reconn

Fish Passage GIS

Hidden River Env

during sampling o

ary System (of the

tp://www.for.gov

ov.bc.ca/REC6595

c.ca/ess/sv/imapb

wing expected bio

by Limnotek in "

d by Limnotek in was not ground‐

mail communicat

naissance by Limn

S analysis, FishHa

vironmental Mgm

of water and fish i

e 10 vulnerable la

v.bc.ca/dkm/recr

5/sitemaps/Mt%2

bc/)

logical responses

all 134 lakes sort

"Rio Tinto Alcan ‐truthed

tion dated Sept.

notek in August 2

bitat [data set]. C

mt., Terrace BC (r

in 2013

KMP SO2 E

akes, only West L

reation/kitimat/k

20Clague%20Sum

s to declining pH

ted by area.xlsx"

Field Data 2012 1

19, 2013)

013, "Field Notes

Craig Mount, MO

ecommended by

ENVIRONMENTA

Lake [ID 00012KIT

kitimat_rec.PDF)

mmerTrail%20Exh

10Jan2013 for M

s_26AUG2013.pd

OE [distributor]

y Markus Feldhoff

AL EFFECTS MON

TR] and End Lake

hibit%20%27A%2

MOE.xlsx"; the acc

df"

ff, DFO)

NITORING (EEM)

[ID 00146LKEL] r

27.pdf)

ess information i

) PROGRAM

73

represented

n this file

PROGRAM

Table 23.

Lakes musCriteria forating (e.g(e.g., crite

Overall Rat

High

Medium

Low

PLAN FOR 20

Method usedbottom

st have ratingor which all thg. criterion 7)eria 2, 4 and 5

ting Crit

1. A

2. R

3. L

4. S

5. H

6. I

7. E

1. A

2. R

3. L

4. S

5. H

6. I

7. E

1. A

2. R

3. L

4. S

5. H

6. I

7. E

KM

13 TO 2018

d to combine row of Table

gs within the hree ratings a than criteria5).

teria

ACCESSIBILITY

RECREATIONAL

LAKE SURFACE

SUSTAINABLE F

HABITAT USE B

NFLUENCE OF

EST. LK VOLUM

ACCESSIBILITY

RECREATIONAL

LAKE SURFACE

SUSTAINABLE F

HABITAT USE B

NFLUENCE OF

EST. LK VOLUM

ACCESSIBILITY

RECREATIONAL

LAKE SURFACE

SUSTAINABLE F

HABITAT USE B

NFLUENCE OF

EST. LK VOLUM

P SO2 ENVIR

ratings on in24.

shaded categare shaded (Lo for which on

AND USE BY P

L VALUE

AREA

FISH PRESENCE

BY ANADROMO

DOC, ORGANI

ME & RESIDENC

AND USE BY P

L VALUE

AREA

FISH PRESENCE

BY ANADROMO

DOC, ORGANI

ME & RESIDENC

AND USE BY P

L VALUE

AREA

FISH PRESENCE

BY ANADROMO

DOC, ORGANI

ME & RESIDENC

RONMENTAL

dividual crite

gories to be aow, Medium nly a High valu

EOPLE

E

OUS SALMON

C ACIDS

CE TIME

EOPLE

E

OUS SALMON

C ACIDS

CE TIME

EOPLE

E

OUS SALMON

C ACIDS

CE TIME

L EFFECTS MO

eria into the o

ssigned the cand High) haue was requir

H

ONITORING (

overall ratings

correspondingd less weightred for an ove

Require

igh Me

(EEM) PROG

s shown on th

g overall ratint on the overaerall rating of

d Ratings

edium L

GRAM

74

he

ng. all f High

ow

P

T

Crite

1. ACAND PEOP

2. REVALU

3. LAAREA

4. SUFISH

5. HAANADSALM

6. INDOC,ACID

7. ES& RETIME

OVER

3

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Table 24. Rating rha

eria

CCESSIBILITY USE BY PLE

ECREATIONAL UE

AKE SURFACE A

USTAINABLE PRESENCE

ABITAT USE BY DROMOUS MON

FLUENCE OF , ORGANIC DS

ST. LK VOLUME ESIDENCE E

RALL RATING

31 LAK012 would ra

OR 2013 TO 2018

results for the 10ve high certainty

LAK012* LAK

M

H

M

L

M

H*

M

H

M

M M

L M

H31 M

ate “M” if it were is

0 lakes with eithey on criteria 4 and

K022 End Lake(LAK006)

L

M

M

H

M

H

M

H*

M

H

M M

M M

M H

solated (due its sm

r CL exceedance d 5.

* West Lake(LAK023)*

H

H

M

M*

M

M

M

M

all size, see Table 2

KMP SO2 ENV

or predicted pH

LAK028 LA

L

M

L

M

L

M

M

L

23), but since it is c

IRONMENTAL EF

H > 0.1. Lakes wit

K042 LAK044

L

H

M

H

L

L

L

L*

M

L

L M

M H

L L

connected to End L

FFECTS MONITO

h an asterisk (*) w

4* LAK047

L

M

L

L

L

H

L

L

Lake (rated H) it sh

RING (EEM) PR

were sampled in

LAK054 LA

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

ould also be rated

ROGRAM

75

2013 and

AK056

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

H.

PROGRAM

Appen Fish samthree ref

Figure 10

PLAN FOR 20

ndix E. F

pling will ocference lake

. Map of the slakes (Laand refe

KM

13 TO 2018

Fish Sam

cur in sevens (Figure 10)

seven lakes thakes 6, 12, 23erence Lakes

MP SO2 ENV

mpling Lo

n lakes: four ).

hat will be sa3 and 44) are 7, 16 and 34

VIRONMENTA

ocations

vulnerable l

mpled for fisindicated by are indicated

AL EFFECTS M

and Me

akes which

h presence/aorange borded by blue bord

MONITORING

ethod

can be safel

absence. The ers around thders.

G (EEM) PRO

y accessed,

four vulnerabheir photogra

OGRAM

76

and

ble phs,

PROGRAM

Fish sammixed laypresent irange (Wtemperaton availain the lat Fish samnets will installed RIC standpanels ofone sinkinets will 16, 25 mmonofila The nets gill nets agill nettinsinking abe used tfrom targ Referenc

Appelbergillne

Morgan, BencNatu

RIC. 1997EnvirReso

Ward, H.charaof rai

PLAN FOR 20

pling will beyer if the laks 7‐13°C. Fis

Ward et al. 20tures <7ºC rable informatter half of S

pling will bebe fished inin late afterdard gill net f different ming fine meshave dimenm stretchedament <0.13

will be placand record cng by Lester nd floating nto either singet depths.

ces:

rg, M. 2000. ets. Fiskerive

G. E. and E Shmark Valueral Resource

7. Fish Colleconment, Lanurces Invent

G. M., P. J. acteristics aninbow trout

KM

13 TO 2018

e scheduled fke is density sh capture u012). Tempereduce fish ation for lakeeptember o

e done using each lake urnoon and re(RIC 1997) w

mesh sizes (2h gill net wilsions of 1.8 d mesh). Matmm for the

ed in habitatcoordinates et al (2009)nets will facik a net or flo

Swedish staerket Inform

Snucins. 200es Manual oes. 47 pp.

ction Methonds and Parktory Commit

Askey, J. R. Pnd temperat(Oncorhync

MP SO2 ENV

for a time wstratified) osing gill netseratures >13activity and ces in the Kitimr early Octo

gill nets. Twsing standarecovered thewill be used,5, 89, 51, 76ll be used tox 12.4 m witerial for the three small

t consideredusing a GPS , Appelberg ilitate samploat a net to

andard methation 2000:1

05. Manual of Instruction

ods and Stanks, Fish Invettee (RIC).

Posta, D. A. ture improvehus mykiss)

VIRONMENTA

hen water tor the compls is known toºC may causcatch rates imat Valley, tber.

wo standard rd overnighte following m each having6, 38, and 64o capture smth four panee small meshest meshes

d optimal forreceiver. Pr(2000), andling of most a specific de

hods for sam1. 29 pp.

of Instructions for NORDI

dards. Prepantory Unit fo

Varkey, ande abundancein small lake

AL EFFECTS M

emperatureete water coo be most efse unacceptan passive gethis tempera

RIC nets (RICt methods (Rmorning. Ong dimension4 mm stretchmall underyeaels of differeh netting wiland 0.18 mm

r catching fisocedures fo Morgan anddepths in eaepth to achie

mpling freshw

ns and ProvIC Index Net

ared by the or the Aquat

d M. K. McAle estimates fes. Fisheries

MONITORING

e in the epilimolumn if no sffective in thable fish moears such as ature range

C 1997) andRIC 1997). Thne floating ans of 91.2 x 2hed mesh). Oarling fish. Tent small mell be uncoloum for the lar

sh. The crewollow standad Snucins (2ach lake. Vaeve collectio

water fish w

incial Biodivtting. Ontari

B.C. Ministrtic Ecosystem

lister. 2012. from standas Research, 1

G (EEM) PRO

mnion (surfastratificationhis temperatortality whilegill nets. Basis likely to o

two small mhe nets will bnd one sinki2.4 m with siOne floatingThe fine meseshes (12.5, ured rgest mesh s

w will deployrd methods 2005). Use ofrious riggingon of sample

ith multi‐me

versity o Ministry o

y of ms Task Forc

Basin ard index net131‐133: 52‐

OGRAM

77

ace n is ture e sed occur

mesh be ng x g and h 19,

size.

y the for f g will es

esh

of

ce,

tting ‐59.

PROGRAM

Appen One of th(LawrencCalcium (importanthe soil (replenishincreasinand prodcompountesting sp Lime andacidity, inWatmoutypically ectomycabundan The two carbonat(CaSO4), Watmouwood ashcalcium ito those (Cd) and Ekelund On the wanalysis oand Watfactors, iwood ashorganic s(mean inlime thantreated wgreatest received

PLAN FOR 20

ndix F. S

he long‐termce et al. 1999(Ca) is a macnt for sustainDriscoll et ah losses in thngly sensitiveductivity (Wands may be epecific locat

d wood ash ancreasing cagh 2013). Sused to meahorrhizae (Ece (Reid and

most commte, limestonecalcium nitrgh 2013). Sh is more sos typically pin liming agelead (Pb) m2004).

whole, additiof 350 indepmouth (2013ncluding soih), dose, forsoils exhibitecreases of 1n to wood aswith lime shomean increahigher treat

KM

13 TO 2018

State‐of‐

m legacies of9; Huntingtocronutrient fning growth l. 2001; Likehe canopy. Le to continuiatmough andeffective. Thions on a pil

are used for alcium conceoil pH, calciuasure succesCM) root cod Watmough

on bufferinge, CaCO3) anrate (Ca(NO3olubility affeluble than cresent as Caents (Demeyay also be p

ons of calciupendent tria3) found thal type (organest stand aged a larger in1.04 and 0.36sh additionsowed the grase in pH (0.tment doses

MP SO2 ENV

‐Knowle

f acid rain haon et al. 200for trees (La(Lawrence ens et al. 199Losses of caling inputs ofd Dillon 200he wide rangot scale.

forest soil aentrations inum foliar conss. Other usolonization, ah 2013).

g compoundnd dolomite 3)2), and calects the respalcium in limaCO3, but coyer et al. 200resent in wo

um to soils hls from 110 at treatmentnic vs. minerge, and tree ncrease in pH6 pH units re. Young foreeatest mean64 pH units)s (>5000 kg/

VIRONMENTA

dge Sum

as been iden0; Watmougwrence et aet al. 1995). 98), making lcium in the f acid (Likens3b). Site‐spge of success

melioration trees, and incentration,eful performand indices o

ds used in lim(CaMg(CO3)lcium chloridponse of soilme compounncentrations01). Potentiood ash (Dem

have not beepeer‐reviewt efficacy depral), time sinspecies (harH following cespectively),est stands (<n increase in) occurred inha). The larg

AL EFFECTS M

mmary fo

ntified as calcgh and Dillonl. 1999) and Acid deposless availablsoil make fos et al. 1998ecific applics of such tre

, with the obimproving tr, and variousmance metriof microbial

ming researc

2), but wollade (CaCl2) cals to calciumnds (Meiwess tend to beially toxic elemeyer et al.

en universallwed liming anpends on a nnce treatmenrdwood vs. scalcium add, and organic<50 yrs) on on pH (1.68 unn initially acigest increase

MONITORING

or Limin

cium depletn 2003a; Yand other biotasition leachee for uptakeorest ecosyst8), and threaation of bufatments sug

bjective of rree growth (s tree growtcs include bdiversity, ri

ch are calciteastonite (CaSan also be um treatment.s 1995). In w highly variaements such2001; Arons

ly beneficialnd wood ashnumber of innt, material softwood). Fition than dc soils respoorganic soils nits). In minidic soils (pHe in base sat

G (EEM) PRO

ng of Soi

ion in soils nai et al. 200a, and is s calcium froe by roots totems aten forest hffering ggests a nee

educing soilReid and th metrics arase saturatichness and

e (calcium SiO3), gypsused (Reid an Calcium in wood ash, able and infeh as cadmiumsson and

. In their meh studies, Renter‐relatedused (lime vFor exampleid mineral soonded betterthat were

neral soils, thH <4.5) that turation (42.

OGRAM

78

ls

05).

om

ealth

d for

re on,

um nd

erior m

eta‐eid vs. e, oils r to

he

.4%)

PROGRAM

occurredtreatmenover conhardwooin foliar cshowed tsoil pH, agrowth (measuresoils (pH higher do When sohorizon aeffects incalcium istands ina decadeorganic shigher cabeing repmobilize of calciumexchangetree grow Lime treawood ashmass of wresponselonger‐la Initial soigrowth inconductelargest inauthors p(magnesadditionsthe initiaexample,

PLAN FOR 20

d in the organt. Foliar catrol) as comod stands trecalcium concthe highest dand tree spe116% over cments were<4.5), hardwoses (>5000

oils are treateand takes timn the mineran the organn Quebec dee to reach ansoils to calciualcium demaplaced by camore calcium in the soileable pool cwth (Reid an

atment prodh, largely bewood ash (Re include measting effect

il pH, tree spn response ted by Reid ancrease in grpostulated tium, potassis from limingal soil pH, bu, Aronsson a

KM

13 TO 2018

nic soils of slcium concepared to staeated with hcentration (9degree of vacies all affeccontrol) occue taken morewoods showkg/ha).

ed with calcme to leach dal horizon. Ric layer (Reidmonstrated nd influence um additionsands than yolcium (Reid m than they exchangeabould lead tond Watmoug

duces a largecause the caeid and Watethod of appon soils than

pecies (hardwto soil ameliond Watmourowth on soihat these situm, nitrogeg or wood ast a growth rand Ekelund

MP SO2 ENV

oftwood stantration shoands treatedigh doses (>92.5% over cariation in thcting the resurred for sofe than 10 yeawed greater g

ium, the limdown into thRecycling of cd and Watmthat lime admineral soils may be affounger standand Watmoy can accumble pool (Joho sustained pgh 2013).

er response ialcium contetmough 201plication andn lower rate

wood vs. soforation withgh (2013), bils that weretes may havn, phosphorsh treatmenresponse wil(2004) foun

VIRONMENTA

ands where sowed the higd with wood >5000 kg/ha)control). As he analysed tponse to treftwoods on sars after tregrowth incre

e or wood ahe mineral scalcium by f

mough 2013)ddition on ths (Moore etfected by fords, resulting ugh 2013). ulate in biomhnson et al. 1positive effec

in soil pH anent in lime c3). Other tr calcium soles (Moore et

ftwood), andh calcium. Inboth hardwoe initially onle been less rus) than mont can inducel not occur ind that fores

AL EFFECTS M

sampling tooghest increaash (13.8% ) exhibited ta performatrials, with teatment. Thsoils with iniatment. Foreases than so

ash is appliedsoil. Short‐teforests may a. Recent reshe forest soit al. 2012). Arest stand agin fewer of tAdditionallymass, resulti1994). Morects on foliar

nd foliar calcompounds ireatment attubility. Hight al. 2012).

d time sincen the meta‐aood and softwy moderatelimiting in teore acidic site pronouncef other nutrst growth ca

MONITORING

ok place ≥10se in limed sover controhe greatest nce measuretime since trhe highest mitial pH >4.5 r sites with ioftwoods, e

d to the upperm trials malso serve tosearch on sul surface canAdditionally,ge. Older stthe hydrogey, young staning in highere calcium in calcium con

cium concens higher thatributes thather liming ra

e treatment aanalysis of cawood standsly acidic (pHerms of othetes (pH <4.5)ed soil changrients are alsn be increas

G (EEM) PRO

0 years afterstands (48.5l). Limed mean increae, tree growreatment, inmean increasand where initially acidispecially at

per organic ay fail to deo hold the adugar maple n take more , the respontands have en ions in sonds are abler concentratthe ncentration a

tration thanan in the samt may affect ates produce

all influencealcium trials s exhibited tH 4.5 ‐ 6). Ther nutrients ). Calcium ges no matteso limiting. Fsed on wood

OGRAM

79

r %

ase wth itial e in

ic

tect dded

than se of

il to tions

and

n me

e a

e tree the he

er For d ash‐

PROGRAM

amelioraoccurred Growth etreatmenmaple grgrowth, acomplexigrowth aafter treathat repoconditionperiod, a In their rEkelund soil microdifferentsites, diffamong dthe poterecommeapplicatio Referenc

Aronssonand ahttp:/

Demeyerinflue287‐2

Driscoll, CLikenUniteBioSc

Huettl, Rrevieonly ahttp:/Acces

PLAN FOR 20

ted peatlandd on nutrient

effects from nt in the triarowth increaand black chities inherenalso takes timatment. Theorted no grons such as raaffecting site

eview of wo(2004) concobes, and sot studies couferent degreifferent studntial for biotended site‐son to forests

ces:

n, K.A. and. Eaquatic ecos//www.ncbi

r, A., J.C. Vence on soil 295.

C.T., G.B. Lans, J.L. Stodded States: Socience 51(3)

. and Zoettl,wing resultsat: //journals2.ssed Octobe

KM

13 TO 2018

ds rich in nitt‐poor miner

calcium treals analysed based in respoherry growthnt in the requme, and 50%e paucity of owth effect (ainfall or pole condition a

ood ash trialsluded that thoil‐decompould be largelyees of stabilidies. Given utoxic effectspecific applis.

Ekelund, N.Gystems. J. En.nlm.nih.gov

Voundi Nkanproperties a

wrence, A.J.ard, and K.Cources and in:180‐198

, H. 1993. Lims from forme

scholarsporter 21, 2013.

MP SO2 ENV

trogen. Howral soils trea

atment of soby Reid and onse to calcih declined. Suirements fo% of the trialslong‐term trReid and Walutants mayand treatmen

s in boreal fohe effects ofsing animalsy explained bzation, and wuncertainties on both terication pract

G.A. 2004. Binviro. Qual. v/pubmed/1

na, and M.Gand nutrient

. Bulger, T.J. C. Weathers.nputs, ecosy

ming as a mier and recen

tal.info.cat1

VIRONMENTA

wever, no chted with wo

oils also variWatmough um additionSuch speciesor tree grows in the analrials may expatmough 20 influence trnt effects (V

orest and aqf calcium tres were not vby abiotic fawood ash does about the rrestrial and tices, rather

iological effe33: 1595‐1615356219. A

G. Verloo. 2t uptake: An

Butler, C.S. . 2001a. Acidystem effects

itigation toont trials. For.

.lib.trentu.c

AL EFFECTS M

ange or eveood ash.

ed by tree s(2013). Wit

n, American s‐specific varwth (Reid andysis measurplain the sub13). Additioree growth aVan der Perre

quatic ecosyseatment on gvery clear. Tactors such aosage used, efficacy of waquatic eco

r than broad

ects of wood605. AbstractAccessed Oct

2001. Charan overview.

Cronan, C.Edic depositios, and mana

ol in GermanEcol. Manag

a:8080/jour

MONITORING

en decreased

species and tthin the hardbeech showriability refled Watmoughed growth lebstantial numonally, enviroand vitality de et al. 2012

stems, Aronground vegehe discrepanas variation iand differenwood ash aposystems, thand genera

d‐ash applicat only at: tober 22, 20

acteristics o Bioresource

Eager, K.F. Laon in the noragement stra

ny’s decliningge. 61: 325‐

rnal.xqy?uri=

G (EEM) PRO

d growth

time since dwoods, sugwed no changects the h 2013). Treess than 6 yember of studonmental during the tr2).

nsson and etation, fungncies betwein fertility amnt time scalepplication, ane authors l wood ash

ation to fore

13.

of wood‐ashe Technolog

ambert, G.E.rtheastern ategies.

g forests‐338. Abstra

=/03781127

OGRAM

80

gar ge in

ee ears dies

rial

gi, en mong es nd

est

h and gy 77:

act

.

PROGRAM

Huntingtdeple185821, 2

Johnson,Chan

Lawrencefores

LawrenceThomstreaEcolo

Likens, GReineHubb

Meiwes, Wate

Moore, Jdolom

Nilsson, SinflueSpruc

Reid, C. atreat

Van der Pon rastand

Watmoucatch

Watmoucentr

Yanai, R.insigh

PLAN FOR 20

ton T., Hoopetion in a So. Abstract on013.

A.H., Anderges in pH an

e, G.B., M.B.t‐floor soils.

e, G.B., M.B.mpson, J.H. Pm chemistryogical Applic

G.E., C.T. Drisers, D.F. Ryabard. Biogeo

K.J. 1995 Aper Air Soil Po

‐D., Ouimet,mitic lime ap

S.I., Anderssence of doloce (Picea abi

and S. Watmment on for

Perre, R., Jondial growth ds. For. Ecol.

gh, S.A. andhment in sou

gh, S.A. andral Ontario, C

D., J.D. Blumhts into calci

KM

13 TO 2018

er R., Johnsoutheastern Unly at: http:/

rson, S.B., Sind available

. David, and

. Nature 378

. David, G.MPorter, and Jy to changinations. 9:105

scoll, D.C. Bun, C.W. Marchemistry 4

pplication ofollut. 85: 143

, R. and Ducpplication. Fo

son, S., Valeuomite on leacies (L.) Karst

mough. 2013 rest ecosyste

nard, M., Andepends on Manage. 28

P.J. Dillon. 2uth‐central O

P.J. Dillon. 2Canada. Env

m, S.P. Hambium depletio

MP SO2 ENV

on C., AulenUnited State//pubs.er.us

ccama, T.G. calcium 193

W.C. Shortle8:162‐165

M. Lovett, P.S.L. Stoddardg acidic dep59‐1072.

uso, T.G. Siccrtin, and S.W1:89‐173.

f lime and w3‐152.

hesne, L. 20or. Ecol. Ma

ur, I., Perssoching and stt.). For. Ecol.

(in prep). Evems through

ndré, F., Nys,n time since 81: 59‐67.

2003a. BaseOntario. Ecos

2003b. Calcivironmental S

burg, M.A. Aron in northe

VIRONMENTA

bac B., Cappes forest ecosgs.gov/publ

1994. Acid r30‐1984. Can

e. 1995. A n

S. Murdoch, d. 1999. Soil osition rates

cama, C.E. JoW. Bailey. 199

ood‐ash to d

012. Soil and nage. 281: 1

n, T., Berghoorage of C, N Manage. 14

valuating theh systematic

, C., Legout, application a

cation and systems 6:67

um losses frScience and

rthur, C.A. Nastern fores

AL EFFECTS M

pellato R. anosystem. Soilication/700

rain and then. J. For. Res

ew mechan

D.A. Burns, calcium stats in the Cats

ohnson, G.M98. The biog

decrease aci

sugar maple130‐139.

olm, J., and WN and S in a 46: 57‐75.

e effects of meta‐analy

A. and Poneand on clima

nitrogen bu75‐693.

rom a forestTechnology

Nezat, and Sists. J. For. 10

MONITORING

d Blum, A. 2l Sci. Soc. Am22483. Acce

e soils of the . 24: 39‐45

ism for calci

B.P. Baldigotus and the rskill Mounta

M. Lovett, T.Jgeochemistry

idification of

e response 1

Wirén, A. 20Spodosol un

liming and wsis.

ette, Q. 2012ate in Norwa

dgets for a m

ted catchmey 37:3085‐30

iccama, T.G.03: 14‐20.

G (EEM) PRO

2000. Calciumm. J. 64:1845essed Octob

Adirondack

um loss in

o, A.W. response of ins of New Y

. Fahey, W.Ay of calcium

f forest soils

15 years afte

001. The nder Norway

wood‐ash

2. Liming effay spruce

mixed hardw

nt in south 089.

2005. New

OGRAM

81

m 5‐ber

ks: I.

York.

A. at

s.

er

y

fect

wood

PROGRAM

Appen Other thaacidic coexcerpts results inThe pH, Athe additincreasesmanganelimed lakgenerallyre‐introdrestore tbeen elimcannot coOther facpresencepossibilit Studies cregarding(e.g. see recoveryWhile in RomundscommunWærvågelakes (Hube compmacroph1994). Recosyste Emissionbe the prenvironmsystems toccur witWærvågeconservin

PLAN FOR 20

ndix G. S

an source conditions in lafrom these n significant ANC, dissolvtion of limess nutrient cyese, and zinckes due to pry has positivduced speciehe biota belminated dueounteract thctors that die of precipitaty of re‐acidi

completed sig the physicClair and Hi in limed lakmany cases stad 1995), uity due to boen 2002); incultberg and Aarable (Appehyte populatRecovery canms (Nilssen

s reduction referred solumental impacthat are treathin the macen 2002). Fong fish popu

KM

13 TO 2018

State‐of‐

ontrol of emakes, streamdocuments positive phyved inorganicstone. Conceycling, decomc – metals threcipitation,e impacts ones in many caieved to be e to a large rehe effects ofstinguish limated metals,ification betw

ince 1990 geal and chemndar 2005). kes is variablrestocked fiunintended oth chemicacomplete reAndersson 1elberg et al. ions that takn be severelyand Wærvå

at source is ution if only cts. Extensivated before croinvertebror localized ulations and

MP SO2 ENV

‐Knowle

issions, the ms, or watersare includedysical, chemic carbon, anentrations omposition, ahat may be t oxidation, sn fish, with sases (Olem 1present prioeduction in f acidic episomed lakes fro, undissolvedween treatm

enerally suppmical changes However, me, and is notish populatioand undesiral and biologestoration of1982; Renbe1995, Hörnke advantagy prolonged gen 2002).

clearly a moa few lakes ve liming effoall fish specrate commumitigation thother biota

VIRONMENTA

edge Sum

most effectisheds is limid at the end ical, and biod calcium ofof nutrients dnd primary poxic to aquasurface adsosuccessful re1990). Despor to acidificlake pH for aodes from inom their unad base matements (Olem

port the oves that occur many post‐1t always as sons were re‐red responsegical factors f biota to therg and Hultbström et al. e of the morin strongly d

ore permaneare affectedorts in Norwies are lost, nity, recovehrough liminin lakes con

AL EFFECTS M

mmary f

ive mitigationg (Olem 19of this appelogical chanf surface wado not typicaproductivityatic biota – aorption, and eproduction pite its manyation, partica considerabfluent streaacidified couerial, elevatem 1990).

erall conclusfollowing th990 studies successful as‐establishedes can includ(Appelberg ee species miberg 1992), t1993); undere alkaline cdisturbed, ch

ent solution d, and sourceway and Sweand before r the most qng, the mostsidered to b

MONITORING

for Limin

on strategy f990, Clair anendix). Liminges in aquataters generaally change, y. Aluminumare sometimion exchangand growth

y benefits, limcularly if certble length ofms or from unterparts ined calcium le

ions of Olemhe liming of asuggest thas reported bd (e.g., Sandøde: instabilitet al. 1995, x present inthough specesirably largeonditions (Rhronically ac

than liming,e control inveden have shmajor domiquickly (Nilsst prudent apbe valuable (

G (EEM) PRO

ng of Lak

for managingd Hindar 200ng commontic ecosystemlly increase wbut liming

m, iron, lead,es lower in ge. Liming h of resident ming may notain taxa havf time. Liminlittoral zonenclude the evels, and th

m (1990) an acidic lakt biological by Olem (199øy and ty of the fishNilssen and unacidified cies diversitye expansionRoelofs et al.cidified

, but it may volves otherhown that nance shiftssen and pproach for and feasible

OGRAM

82

kes

g 05 – ly ms. with

and ot ve ng es.

e

ke

90).

y may s of .

not r

e for

PROGRAM

liming) wLocalizedof limest0.3 units collecteddevelop However(every fewith longreacidific The best

o Sore

o Lap

o Rca

o Evsosa

o Ssa

The Newcriteria foand a ret Clair andfollowingtheir objecarefully

1. Fa

2. T3. T

m

32 From thedepth wmean delower or

PLAN FOR 20

would be to md mitigation one to the labelow its 20

d lake water a titration cur, it should bew years) if tg‐term resulcation and th

candidates oftwater lakegion); arge pH flucH sonde); etention timan get a rouvidence of home lakes inampling); anlow fish growampling).

w York Deparor deciding wtention time

Hindar (200g a clear proectives. To aconsidered irst, there nend the partshere must bhe proponenmethods they

e sampling conhich requires aepth, but is drivr higher than th

KM

13 TO 2018

maintain thewould involvake surface 012 level, thshould be uurve for eacbe considerehe source ofts showed thhe reversal t

for liming (Wkes with pH <

tuations (no

me > 3 monthgh estimatehistorical fishn the valuationd wth and low

rtment of Enwhich lakes e less than 6

05) further ecess to miniachieve thes(2005, p. 18eeds to be as of the ecosbe clear undents must havy will be usin

nducted in 201a bathymetry sven by the safehe sampled de

MP SO2 ENV

eir pH at closve occasionato maintain en restore itsed to empih lake. Modd that limingf acidificatiohat the termto pre‐liming

Weigmann e< 6.5 (true fo

ot known for

hs (need to from 2012 sh populationon table, an

w food produ

vironmentawere appromonths.

emphasize thmize ecologe conditions8, emphasis a good rationsystem in neerstanding ove reasonabng.

12, we know thsurvey. The deest place for thpth.

VIRONMENTA

se to their cual, careful adlake pH at itt back to its rically deterels could beg will likely non remains umination of lig conditions

et al. 1993) hor all 10 acid

r these lakes

know mean sampling – sns (have aned will have m

uction (can in

l Conservatipriate for lim

he importangical damages, Clair and Hadded): nale to justifed of protecof the targetble expectat

e depth of lakepth of the lakehe helicopter to

AL EFFECTS M

urrent level dditions of pts current le2012 level).rmine the ape used to cheneed to be runchanged. Aiming progra(Clair and H

have the follod‐sensitive la

s, but could b

depth32 to esee Table 25cdotal and smore detaile

nfer this from

on (1990) usming, focusin

ce of propoe and maximHindar sugge

fy attemptinction need tot species lifeions of wha

es at the sampe at the samplio hover, so the

MONITORING

(i.e., prevenprecisely estevel (i.e., if th. Laboratoryppropriate deck these estredone on anAll of the Euams resultedHindar 2005)

owing charaakes in the R

be determin

estimate this5); survey data oed data from

m fish densi

sed somewhng on lakes w

nents and remize the chanest the follow

ng to modifyo be clearly e cycle. at is achievab

pling point, butng point is a roe mean depth

G (EEM) PRO

ntative liminimated amohe lake pH fa tests of dosage, and timates. n ongoing baropean studd in rapid .

acteristics: Rio Tinto Alc

ned by placin

s accurately

on this pointm 2013

ties in 2013

hat differentwith a pH <

egulators nce of meetiwing issues

y an ecosystidentified.

ble with the

t not the meanough estimate could be ~50%

OGRAM

83

g). ounts alls

asis dies

an

ng a

, but

t for

t 5.7

ing be

tem,

n of the

%

PROGRAM

4. T Given theslurry froaccessiblsurface (be the onneed to bhave had Table 25.

SITE_ID

LaA(h

LAK006 10

LAK012 2

LAK022 5

LAK023 6

LAK028 1

LAK042 1

LAK044 2

LAK047 1

LAK054 1

LAK056 1

a RetentioRetent

________ Summary

Acidstrewatfor

Conwat

PLAN FOR 20

he proponen

e small size oom a tank one lakes, whiOlem 1990, nly option fobe carefully d mixed succ

Estimate of wtwo lake

ake rea ha)

Depth asamplinpoint (m

0.25 5

2.30 3

5.74 10

6.77 2

1.02 15

1.46 12

2.01 15

1.61 0

1.52 5

1.77 6

on time (yr) = Ltion time (yr) =

________

y from Olem

dic conditionseam, or waterter quality suitmitigation of a

nventional whters or waters

KM

13 TO 2018

nts must hav

of the lakes nboard a boach ensures bpg. 15‐59). or lakes whicevaluated (ecess (Olem 1

water retentioes (LAK012 an

at ng m)

Water‐shed Area

(ha)

5.7 91.2

3.5 90.

0.1 39.9

2.7 40.3

5.5 11.9

2.0 37.2

5.0 9.9

0.5 42.9

5.1 125.3

6.6 27.3

Lake Volume (m= [Lake Area (m

m 1990:

s in surface wshed or by lestable for the sacidic conditio

ole lake liminsheds. Lakes

MP SO2 ENV

ve a good un

of interest iat would be both rapid dDelivery of lch are not ace.g., safety, l1990, pg. 15‐

ona time (or rnd LAK054) ha

a Runoff (m)

2 0.88

1 0.86

9 0.83

3 0.90

9 1.58

2 0.60

9 0.64

9 2.41

3 1.61

3 1.60

m3) / Annual Om2) * Mean Dep

waters can be ss common msupport of fishons is the add

g is a more ehave been th

VIRONMENTA

nderstandin

n the KMP sthe most coissolution animestone byccessible by lake’s value,‐61 to 15‐63

residence timave more tha

Estimated Midrange

Lake Volume (m3)

EMRT

584,232

80,538

580,128

182,857

158,726

175,186

300,832

8,028

77,707

116,897

utflow (m3/yr)pth (m)] / [Wat

mitigated bymethods. The ph populationsition of limest

stablished mithe receptors m

AL EFFECTS M

ng of the tim

study area, aost‐effective nd accurate y helicopter road, and th, degree of p).

me) for the tenan a 3‐month

Estimated Midrange Residence Time (yr)

ReT

0.726

0.104

1.744

0.505

0.849

0.790

4.777

0.008

0.038

0.267

. This can be etershed Area (

y adding alkalprimary objecs. The mitigatitone.

tigation alternmost widely t

MONITORING

me to recove

application oapproach fodelivery acror fixed winhe pros and pH control);

n acid‐sensitivresidence tim

Min esidence Time (yr)

RT

0.363

0.052

0.872

0.253

0.424

0.395

2.388

0.004

0.019

0.133

estimated fromm2) * Annual R

line materialsctive is the maon strategy m

native than limtreated, prima

G (EEM) PRO

ery of the sys

of a limestonor road‐ross the lakeng aircraft wcons would these metho

ve lakes. All bme.

Max esidence Time (yr)

>r

1.089

0.156

2.616

0.758

1.273

1.185

7.165

0.012

0.058

0.400

m: Runoff (m/yr)].

s to the lake, aintenance of most effective

ming running arily because

OGRAM

84

stem.

ne

e ould

ods

but

> 3 month residence time?

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

.

PROGRAM

theyfromwatconhas longconthe dosreac

Thephyocctemincrsignthatare excinst

Limin aconlimispebut fishlimicon

Resalwrestnot sepundtrea

Excerpts

NOTE: thmore subpresent E

33 Significasince 199

34 See prev

PLAN FOR 20

y can be treatm boats or heters have beetinuous streabeen receivinger than surfditions and leUnited Statees required cidification rat

e addition of ysical, chemicaur in low hum

mperature. Therease after linificantly chant may be toxicsometimes lohange. Limestantaneous ad

ing generally a positive respsiderable alteng have beencies previouslstressed fish species haveng has causeditions causin

toration of ways resulted itore conditioneliminate acarate limes dissolved baseatments.

from Clair a

he studies revbstantial leveEEM. The pre

ntly more expe90 (e.g., see Clavious footnote.

KM

13 TO 2018

ted with a singelicopters areen treated to mwater treatng increased iace water limeaching of traces is experimefor treatingtes.

base material, and biologimic waters afe pH, ANC, dismestone addnge after liminc to aquatic oower in limed tone additiondsorption of ca

increases nutponse in aquaeration in comn clearly favory lost form thpopulations. e been develoed mortalitieng the toxicity

water quality cin restorationns exactly as thidic episodes waters from e material, elev

and Hindar (

viewed by Clels of acidificedominant f

erience and reair and Hindar .

MP SO2 ENV

gle applicatioe generally thdate33; perm

tment. Treatmnterest in rec

ming and mayce metals. Littental. Accuratg lakes, stre

als to surfaccal changes infter liming arssolved inorgadition. Concenng, but some srganisms‐ parwaters due ton often causealcium.

trient cycling, atic biota. Limmmunity strucable to fish pohe system, intSuccessful reoped in manys in residentwere not alw

conditions to n of the originhey were befofrom influentheir unacid

vated calcium

(2005):

lair and Hindcation than focus of rese

search on stre2005 for a mo

VIRONMENTA

n that may lase most effect

manent structument of the wcent years. Way provide incrtle experiencete methods aams, and w

ce waters comn aquatic ecosre decreased anic carbon, antrations of studies have srticularly alumo precipitationes changes in

decompositioming often resucture of bentopulations. Liroduction of nproduction any limed surfact fish popula

ways clearly ide

those believenal biota. It more acidificatiot streams or dified countem levels, and th

dar (2005) corepresentedearch on limi

am liming andore recent revie

AL EFFECTS M

st several yeative techniqueures are genewatershed to patershed liminreased protece exists for ware available fwatersheds, a

mmonly resusystems. Phystransparencyand calcium onutrients andshown a respominum, iron, len, oxidation, sn lake sedime

on, and primaults in increasthic macroinvming has permnew species, ond growth of ce waters. In ations due toentified.

ed to exist bemay also be poon. For exampfrom littoral

erparts, includhe possibility

oncern freshd by pH thresing has been

d watershed/caew).

MONITORING

ars. Limestonees. Relatively erally requireprotect lakes ng has been sction from eptershed liminfor determininand for esti

ults in significsical changes ty and increaseof surface watd organic maonse in limed ead, manganeurface absorpents due prim

ry productivitsed plankton ertebrates. Thmitted the stoor the recoveresident and a few isolate

o metal toxic

efore acidificaossible that liple, whole‐lakezones. Otherding precipitaof reacidificat

hwater systesholds identin highly acid

atchment limin

G (EEM) PRO

e applications few running d to provide and streams shown to last pisodic acidic g34; its use in ng limestone mating lake

cant positive that normally ed color and ters generally atter do not lakes. Metals ese, and zinc‐ption, and ion marily to the

ty and results biomass and he effects of ocking of fish ry of existing reintroduced ed instances, city, but the

ation has not iming cannot e liming does r factors also ated metals, tion between

ems with muified in the ified lakes in

ng has accumu

OGRAM

85

uch

n

lated

PROGRAM

Europe adecades.lakes andlevels of changes applicatiresponsiv

Basexceto athe

Moa detenddegpre‐thattemupousucatclongwhecon

Thepreacona laGenalwAli) preretuand

Ecofromcandid

Referenc

Appelberwate

PLAN FOR 20

and eastern N Consequentd streams deacidificationin pH, and son of limingve timefram

ed on our aneptions, the uaquatic ecosysliming of wet

st of the studesired state. Gd to accumugradation in co‐acidification t the chemic

mporary, as reon cessation oally within a chments. So thg term. As wether or not siderations. (p

e main shortcacidification ditions may oack of sourcenerally, the paays, can be ascan be maindators is doneurned to pre‐d prone to larg

system limingm being irretnot be a subsnot exist befo

ces:

rg, M., P‐E. Lrs (ISELAW‐P

KM

13 TO 2018

North Ameritly, compareescribed by Cn, thus requirignificant ec within the Ee for potent

nalysis of the use of lime or stems either inlands. (p. 116

ies we report Generally, thelate more acommunity comecological cocal changes bacidification iof the liming efew years w

he question thwe show that

to lime wilp. 116)

coming of limconditions fo

occur when uses for sensitapers quotedssisted in retuntained over e. More oftenacidification cge changes in c

g must be vierievably lost stitute for polore the acidific

Lingdell, C. AProgramme)

MP SO2 ENV

ica, which haed to the conClair and Hinring more incological degEEM concerntial mitigatio

literature, wdolomite on n the short or )

on have beene biological cocid‐sensitive smposition or snditions havebrought abous bound to reeffort. The revwhen liming lhat must be ast liming is noll involve a

ming programor several ring unsuitableive species rin this review

urning to viablong periods than not, howconditions ancomposition.

ewed as a toountil nature clution prevencation problem

Andrén. 1995). Water, Ai

VIRONMENTA

ave been expntext of the Endar (2005) rntensive limingradation thns a much smon.

e must comeeither catchmlong term. Th

n able to modommunities inspecies, and structure. How been more eut to streameturn ecosysteversion is immlakes, and besked is whethot generally hnumber of s

s is that ecoeasons. Firste liming stratereintroductionw show thatble numbers, aof time and wever, the resd the new co(p. 117)

ol to keep ecocan restore ittion, nor shoum existed. (p.

5. Intergrater and Soil Po

AL EFFECTS M

posed to heaEEM, the prerepresent syng treatmenhat has occurmaller chang

e to the concments or watehe one except

dify the chemin rivers and lahave not showever, returnelusive. An ims, lakes, andems to their

mediate when etween 10 aner liming is a wharmful to thsocial, policy,

osystems do t, unstable oegies. Secondln will affect targetted fishas long as pH that restockst of the ecosommunities m

osystems or ttself under leuld it be used118)

e studies of tollution, 85:

MONITORING

avy levels of e‐liming conystems with mnts targetingrred over timge in pH and

lusion that wr bodies is notion to these c

stry of receiviakes that haveown any obvns to what mamportant reasd catchmentsprevious “damliming streamnd 50 years worthwhile exhe environme, and even

not completeor inadequaty, species intecommunity h species usu and ANC (anking or protecsystem is nevemay be relativ

targetted fishess polluted cd to create co

the effect of883‐888.

G (EEM) PRO

f deposition onditions of thmuch higherg greater me. The possd a much mo

with very fewot deleterious conclusions is

ing waters to e been limed vious further ay have been on for this is are usually maged” state ms and rivers, when liming xercise in the ent, deciding philosophical

ely return to te chemistry eractions and composition. ually, but not nd thus lower ction against er completely vely unstable

h populations conditions. It nditions that

f liming acidi

OGRAM

86

over he r

sible ore

ified

PROGRAM

Clair, T.Arevie

Hörnströin sixFishe

HultbergAir, a

H. SimonDepaNew

Nilssen, Jfollow9: 73–

Olem, H.

Renberg,effecScien

Roelofs, Jafter

RosselanSalbucomp78: 3

Sandøy, SpresePollu

WeigmanAcidifInstit

Addition

HenriksoSprin

Renberg,Swed

AnderssoWate

PLAN FOR 20

A. and A. Hinw of recent

öm, E., C. Eks Swedish weeries and Aqu

g, H., I. Andeand Soil Pollu

nin. 1990. Finartment of EYork Depart

J.P., S.B. Wæwing liming o–84.

1990. Limin

, I., H. Hultbets on diatomnces, 49: 65‐7

J.G.M., T.E. liming of ac

d, B.O., I.A. u, M. Staurneplex aluminiu‐8.

S., A.J. Romuerve and restion, 85: 997

nn, D.L., L.A.fied Lakes antute and Stat

al reference

on, L., Y‐W. Bger‐Verlag B

, I. T. Korsmaden. Ambio.

on, P., H. Borer, Air, and S

KM

13 TO 2018

dar. 2005. Lresults. Env

ström, E. Fröest coast lakuatic Science

rsson. 1982.ution, 18: 31

nal generic environmentatment of Env

ærvågen. 200of acidified l

ng acidic sur

erg. 1992. Am assemblag72.

Brandrud, Acidified SW N

Blakar, A. Bues, R. Vogt. 1um chemistr

undstad. 199tore biologic7‐1002.

. Helfrich, D.nd Ponds. Vte University

es, not cited

Brodin. 1995Berlin Heide

an, N.J. Ande, 22(5): 264‐

rg, P. KärrhaSoil Pollution

MP SO2 ENV

iming for theironmental

öberg, J. Ek. es under acies, 50: 688‐7

. Liming of a11‐331.

environmental Conservatvironmental

02. Intensivelakes? Journ

rface waters

Paleolimnoges in a Swed

A.J.P. SmoldeNorwegian la

ulger, F. Kro1992. The mry and extre

95. Liming ocal diversity

.C. Josephsoirginia Watey, Blacksburg

in this sum

. Liming of alberg. 458 p

erson. 1993.‐271.

age. 1995. Mn, 80: 889‐89

VIRONMENTA

e mitigationReview 13:9

1993. Planktidic and lime702.

cidified lake

tal impact sttion ProgramConservatio

e fish predatal of Aquati

s. Lewis Publ

logical assesdish lake. Ca

ers. 1994. Maakes. Aquati

glund, A. Kvmixing zone bme toxicity f

f acidified lain the acidif

n, R.M. Speeer Resourcesg. 23 pp.

mary:

acidified surfp.

. A Tempora

Mercury in fis92.

AL EFFECTS M

n of acid rain91‐128.

ton and cheed condition

es: induced lo

tatement onm of Liming Son, Division

tion: an obstc Ecosystem

ishers, Chels

ssment of acanadian Jour

assive expanc Botany, 48

vellstad, E. Lybetween limfor salmonid

akes and rivefied regions.

enburgh. 19s Research C

face waters:

al Perspectiv

sh muscle in

MONITORING

n effects in fr

mical‐physicns. Canadian

ong‐term ch

n the New YoSelected Aciof Fish and W

tacle to biolom Stress and

sea, MI. 331

cidification arnal of Fisher

nsion of Junc8: 187‐202.

ydersen, D. Hed and acidds. Environm

ers in Norwa. Water, Air

992. GuidelinCenter: Virgin

: A Swedish

ve of Lake Ac

acidified an

G (EEM) PRO

reshwaters:

cal developm Journal of

hanges. Wat

ork State dified WateWildlife. 242

ogical recoveRecovery

1 pp.

and liming ries and Aqu

cus bulbosu

H. Oughton,ic river watemental Pollut

ay: An attemand Soil

nes for Liminnia Polytech

synthesis.

cidification in

nd limed lake

OGRAM

87

A

ment

er,

rs. 2 pp.

ery

uatic

s L.

B. ers: tion,

mpt to

ng nic

n

es.

PROGRAM

Sverdrupcalcit

PLAN FOR 20

pH., P. Warfvte. Water Re

KM

13 TO 2018

vinge. 1985. esources Res

MP SO2 ENV

A reacidificasearch, 21(9)

VIRONMENTA

ation model ): 1374‐1380

AL EFFECTS M

for acidified0.

MONITORING

d lakes neut

G (EEM) PRO

ralized with

OGRAM

88

PROGRAM

AppenLake C The BC Minferentiperformadescribeddetailed The EEMearliest pfollowing

1. Nd

2. A(ila

3. Appo

4. Cinsunch

5. ASO(SsepexEo(4Stlothty

PLAN FOR 20

ndix H. DChemist

Ministry of Enal methods tance indicatd below builstudies on la

triggers in Tpossible deteg points helpNo acidificateposition an

Acidification .e., increaseake ANC andAcidification H and ANCollution sourganic acidsombinationsntermediateulphate fromot be expechanges in suAcidification O4, lake [SOStoddard etensitive lakeower analysxamining eaEM Programf organic an4.68) and ANtoddard et aow ANC andherefore havypes of lakes

KM

13 TO 2018

Design Cry

nvironment to be used tor of pH andld on previoake chemist

Table 14 (deection of biop to provide ion would snd lake SO4, strongly reles in emissiod pH). unrelated to, no changeurces), Cl (a) and/or orgs of naturbetween F

m wetlands cted to shoulphate depotrends are

O4], lake ANCt al. 1996, es with simsis) will proach lake’s trem have similaions (25 to 2NC (‐20 µeq/al. (1996) fo high DOC, ve relativelys with highe

MP SO2 ENV

Consider

has requesto evaluate td other inforus acidificatry being con

crease in lakologically siga context foshow pattebut no chanated to KMons of SO2,

o KMP coulde in SO4), bacidification ganic anions ral and antFigure 12 aor marine c

ow a long teosition. best detectC, and lake p2003). Exailar charactovide much ends indepear pH levels 28%), as sho/l) due its hund that lakhave relativy good statisr ANC (Figur

VIRONMENTA

rations f

ted a detailethe EEM trigrmative indicion studies, nducted in 20

ke pH of 0.3 nificant acidor the methorns like thonge in lake inP would gendeposition o

d show pattebut increasedue to dep(watershed thropogenicand Figure clays might erm, contin

ed by exampH) across mamining wateristics (to higher stat

endently. Six(4.98 to 5.92own in Tableigher percekes with lowvely low yeastical power re 16).

AL EFFECTS M

for Detec

ed descriptiogers in Tablecators such abut will be f014.

pH units) ardification thaods describeose in Figurn ANC or pH)nerate the pof SO4 and

erns like thoes in other position of releases duc processes13. For ecause episoued acidific

mining multipmultiple laketer qualitybe evaluatetistical powx of the seve2), ANC (‐4 te 26. Lake 04nt of organi

w ANC and lor to year vafor detectin

MONITORING

cting Tre

on of the state 14, using bas ANC. Thefurther adap

re meant to at is related ed below: re 11 (i.e., ). patterns sholake [SO4]; a

ose in Figureanions, sucseasalt in w

ue to changes could resexample, relodic acidificacation trend

ple indicatoes with similatrends jointed as part wer to evaluen acid‐sensto 57 µeq/l) 42 has a somic anions (81ow DOC, as wariability in Ang trends co

G (EEM) PRO

ends in

tistical and both the key methods pted based o

result in theto KMP. The

increases in

own in Figuand decreas

13 (decreash as NO3 (owatersheds es in climate)sult in patleases of station, but w correlated

rs (depositioar charactertly for the of the statiuate trends sitive lakes iand percent

mewhat lowe1%). Fortunawell as lakesANC and pHompared to o

OGRAM

89

y

on

e e

n SO4

re 12 ses in

ses in other with ). tterns tored would with

on of ristics acid‐stical than n the tages er pH ately, s with , and other

PROGRAM

Figure 11

PLAN FOR 20

. Patterns of cpH (bottrates to

KM

13 TO 2018

changes in SOtom) indicatinneutralize de

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

ANC and SO4 (ueq/l)

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SO2 emissions (t/d)

SO4 Deposition (m

eq/m

2/yr)

[SO4] (ueq/l)

MP SO2 ENV

O4 depositionng no acidificeposited acid

6

7

8

0

SO

VIRONMENTA

(top graph), ation (i.e., laks, so no chan

ANC

Time

pH

O2 EM & S DEP

AL EFFECTS M

lake [SO4] anke [SO4] increnge in ANC or

e

SO4

MONITORING

nd ANC (middeases, but sufpH).

G (EEM) PRO

le graph), andfficient weath

OGRAM

90

d lake hering

PROGRAM

Figure 12

PLAN FOR 20

. Patterns of cgraph),

KM

13 TO 2018

changes in SOand lake pH (

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ANC and SO4 (ueq/l)

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SO2 emissions (t/d)

SO4 Deposition (m

eq/m

2/yr)

[SO4] (ueq/l)

MP SO2 ENV

O2 emissions, (bottom grap

SO

VIRONMENTA

SO4 depositioh) consistent

ANC

Tim

pH

O2 EM & S DEP

AL EFFECTS M

on and lake [S with acidifica

C

me

SO4

MONITORING

SO4] (top graation due to

G (EEM) PRO

ph), ANC (midKMP.

OGRAM

91

ddle

PROGRAM

Figure 13

PLAN FOR 20

. Patterns of cother anwith aciand/or clakes cloS depos

KM

13 TO 2018

changes in SOnions [NO3+Cdification dueclimate‐driveose to the seaition.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ANC and SO4 (ueq/l)

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

pH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SO2 emissions (t/d)

SO4 Deposition (m

eq/m

2/yr)

[SO4] (ueq/l)

MP SO2 ENV

O2 emissions, CL+Organic], (e factors othen releases of a but far from

SO2 EM

VIRONMENTA

SO4 depositio(middle grapher than KMP (organic anio

m the smelter

ANC NO3 + C

Time

pH

M S DEP

AL EFFECTS M

on and lake [Sh); and lake p(i.e., N emissins). This pattplume and th

Cl + ORG

SO4

MONITORING

SO4] (top grapH (bottom grions, sea salt tern might ocherefore rece

G (EEM) PRO

ph), ANC andraph) consisteacidification,cur for high Deiving low lev

OGRAM

92

d ent , DOC vels of

PROGRAM

Table 26.

Table 27 7 acid‐sethe Granshape is 2013 (pg

Table 27.

HypotheticLa

Lake

/Str

eam

ID

Nam

e

LAK006 End L.LAK012 Little End L.LAK022 LAK023 West L.LAK028 LAK042 LAK044 Finlay Lake

LAK007 Clearwater LAK016 LAK034

STR002 Anderson CSTR009 Kitimat R. d/s

Acid Sensitive La

Control Lakes

Special Study St

IDENTIFICATION

PLAN FOR 20

Characteristisamplin

shows examensitive lakes ANC calculaaffected by s. 238‐239,

Illustration osensitivethreshocalculat

cal ake Base‐

line

value

A 6.0

B 5.5

C 5.0

D 4.5

Ele

vatio

n

Lake

Are

a

m ha

151 10151 2162 5211 6267 1171 1219 2

Ls. 152 2247 2292 8

Cr. d/s 146s 112

akes

reams

SITE ATTR

KM

13 TO 2018

cs of lakes ing in August 2

mples of pH, s in the EEMations. The tthe amount 304), Hemon

f pH, ANC ane lakes in thelds is not a coion of the Bas

pH

Thresh

Value

5.7

5.2

4.7

4.2

Wat

ersh

ed A

rea

Run

off

Aci

d S

ensi

tivity

C(

SC

)1

ha m

0.2 91 0.9 32.3 90 0.9 35.7 40 0.8 36.8 40 0.9 3

.0 12 1.6 4

.5 37 0.6 12.0 10 0.6 1

2.6 367 1.0 32.6 41 0.9 38.6 73 0.7 3

3741 2.1 3157136 1.6 3

RIBUTES

MP SO2 ENV

cluded in the012. EEM Pro

ANC and SO Program, btitration curvand charactnd 1990, Ma

d SO4 thresho EEM Programoncern as lonseline value is

hold Bl

Δ va

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Cla

ss (

AS

C)

1

Fis

h H

abita

t 2

Gra

n A

NC

µmeqL

Yes - Obs. 25Yes - Obs. 57Yes - Infer. 27Yes - Obs. 19Unknown -4Yes - Infer. -20No - Obs. 1

Yes - Obs. 1437Unknown 68Yes - Infer. 99

Yes - Obs. 94Yes - Obs. 160

VIRONMENTA

EEM Programogram will rel

O4 thresholdsased on a lave is the relater of dissolvarmorek et a

olds which wom, based on lg as the pH as discussed in

ANC

ase‐ine

T

alue Valu

26 1

5.8 ‐

‐5.8 ‐1

‐26 ‐5

HC

O3

Cl

SO

4

q/ % % %

5.7 34% 8% 17%7.0 61% 4% 6%7.8 24% 7% 29%9.8 25% 6% 25%4.0 0% 5% 51%0.4 0% 7% 8%

.3 9% 19% 24%

7.6 95% 2% 3%8.7 53% 4% 23%9.4 69% 3% 11%

4.2 57% 2% 37%0.6 80% 4% 13%

ANION COMPOS

AL EFFECTS M

m. Chemical vly on fall sam

s that will beake specific tationship beved organic al. 1996).

ould be estabake specific tnd ANC thresn Section 6.2.

C

Threshold

ue Δ

1.8 ‐14.2

1.1 ‐6.9

5.6 ‐9.8

3.2 ‐27.2

OR

G

F Crit

ical

Loa

d

SD

EP

5

% %meq/

m2/yr

m

m

34% 6% 28.426% 4% 79.135% 6% 53.936% 7% 31.925% 18% 46.181% 4% 15.938% 10% 0.0

0% 0% 1390.015% 5% 115.515% 3% 125.1

3% 1% 330.62% 0% 299.3

CRITICALDEPOSITEXCEEDA

SITION

MONITORING

values shownpling.

e determinetitration curvtween pH anacids in a la

blished for eatitration curvesholds are no2.

Base‐line

value

2 30.2

9 6.2

8 56.9

2 9.0

SD

EP

(p

re-K

MP

)

SD

EP

5

(pos

t-K

MP

)

Exc

eeda

nce

meq/

m2/yr

meq/

m2/yr

meq/

m2/yr

20.7 42.4 14.219.9 41.5 -37.419.5 41.5 -12.220.3 40.7 9.063.7 96.8 51.2

6.7 15.7 0.27.0 16.6 16.7

16.8 35.9 -1353.721.9 44.3 -70.9

8.0 18.8 -105.9

21.4 25.5 -301.913.9 23.6 -273.4

L LOAD, TION & ANCE

G (EEM) PRO

n are from

ed for each ove derived frnd ANC, andke (ESSA et

ch of the 7 aces. Exceedingot exceeded. T

SO4

Threshol

Value

44.4

13.1

66.7

36.2

Est

imat

ed o

rigin

al

pH Mea

sure

d cu

rren

t pH P

redi

cted

fut

ure

pH0 pHt p

2 6.02 5.794 5.74 5.642 6.11 5.920 5.96 5.702 5.77 4.982 4.92 4.687 5.80 5.40

7 7.98 7.989 6.37 6.319 6.76 6.74

9 6.91 6.914 6.98 6.98

pH (original, present

OGRAM

93

of the rom d its al.

cid‐g SO4 The

d

Δ

14.2

6.9

9.8

27.2

stea

dy-s

tate

pH

Pre

dict

ed ∆

pH

(2

012

to f

utur

e)

pH∞

5.31 -0.485.51 -0.135.54 -0.395.16 -0.544.60 -0.384.48 -0.204.86 -0.55

7.98 0.006.24 -0.076.71 -0.03

6.91 0.006.98 0.00

, post-KMP)

PROGRAM

Determinunits (Tapre‐KMPsensitiveSO4. Comparisannual vaproductiv

1. Faaf

2. Faflm

The EEM

1. exa

2. oa0

3. udsaex

4. u5. ex

se6. u

la Step 1 hain 2014. Tfrom 4.7 less for lafactors: 1smaller pproductiv

35 Continuominutes fsamples wduring oth

PLAN FOR 20

ning whetheble 14 trigge pH with pos lakes will in

sons of lake ariation in clvity, mixing alse negativffect aquaticalse positiveuctuations a

monitoring a

Program wixamine longnd betweenbtain estimacid‐sensitive23))35; se inferenceetect changamples or mxcerpted in se data fromxamine pattensitivity witse multiple ake pH, ANC,

as been partThe 7 acid‐sto 5.92). Figakes with a m1) pH is on apH change beve than lake

us pH monitors

rom September will be obtained her months exce

KM

13 TO 2018

er or not an ier for increast KMP pH mncrease the s

pH values wlimate) and and weatheve: not detec biota, and e: detectingand falsely and/or mitiga

ill use five stg term data ‐year variabates of the ne lakes (End

es from stepges in pH, Amore frequeFigure 16; m all 7 acid‐sterns of chathin the 11 slines of evi, SO4, NO3, D

tially compleensitive lakegure 14 showmean pH<6, log scale, soelow pH 6 thes with pH >

(calibrated and

2014 to August four times durinept for the winte

MP SO2 ENV

individual lased monitormeasuremensample size 7

will be affectwithin the far). Ultimatecting a real is due to KMg a pH chanattributing iation (an eco

trategies to sets from otbility in lake cnatural variaLake (lake 0

ps 1 and 2 toNC and SO4

ent sampling

sensitive EEMange in lakesampled lakedence to asDOC, S and N

eted and proes in the EEMws that with than for lako a given chahan above p6 and theref

cross‐checked a

2015 except dung October 2014er period.

VIRONMENTA

ke’s fall pH mring) involvents. Combini7‐fold for de

ed by variaball sampling ly there are pH decreas

MP (an environge of 0.3 it to KMP, leonomic risk)

reduce the rther regionschemistry; ability in pH006), Little E

o conduct st

4 over differg, building o

M lakes jointe chemistry es (7 acid‐sessess whethN deposition

ovides some M Program ain year variakes with a mange in hydrH 6; and 2) lfore have le

against a field pH

uring winter mon4 to assess natur

AL EFFECTS M

measuremees comparingng all of theetecting ove

bility in pH bperiod (duetwo potentise of 0.3 unonmental risunits whicheading to u.

risks of theses of North A

, ANC, SO4 aEnd Lake (lak

tatistical powrent time fraon the wor

tly to increasacross gradensitive and er or not acn), as discuss

useful insighall have pH vability in pH ean pH>6. Trogen ion colakes with pss within‐ye

H meter every tw

nths when ice coral variability du

MONITORING

nt has decreg baseline ese data for therall trends in

both betweee to variabilitial types of enits that hassk); and h is actuallynnecessary

e errors: America to as

and other ioke 012), and

wer analysesames, using k of Stodda

se statisticaldients of SO4 insensitivecidification sed above.

hts. Further values less thin Ontario laThese resultsoncentrationH < 6 are geear variability

wo weeks) will re

over prevents acring the index p

G (EEM) PRO

eased by 0.3stimates of te seven acidn pH, ANC an

n years (duety in lake errors: s occurred, c

y due to naexpenditure

ssess within

ons from 3 od West Lake

s of the abileither fall

ard et al. (1

l power;

4 depositione lakes); andis occurring

work is planhan 6 (pH raakes was mus reflect twon results in a enerally less y in pH. Figu

ecord pH every

ccess. Full chemieriod, and mont

OGRAM

94

the d‐nd

e to

could

atural es on

n‐year

of the (lake

ity to index 1996),

n and d (i.e.,

nned nges uch o

ure

30

istry thly

PROGRAM

14 providgreater tdetect. Fwithin th

Figure 14

Figure 15period frtrend. Sinthan Ontobserve October period, along termNational Monitori

PLAN FOR 20

des encourahan within yurthermorehe entire yea

. Within year years ofless thanYan (Yor

5 is from 32 om 1976 to nce the meatario lakes win the 7 EEMpH samples and showed m monitoringSurface Wang and Asse

KM

13 TO 2018

gement thatyear variabil, variability war.

range of pH (f data from On 0.3 pH unitsrk University)

years of mo2007 had anan pH of Bluewith a mean pM lakes, whicin Blue Chaless variabilig data led thter Survey (Lessment Prog

MP SO2 ENV

t a year on yity in pH for within the fa

(maximum pHntario lakes. s for 27 out o) and Andrew

nitoring datn average pHe Chalk LakepH < 6 (Figuch all had a plk Lake geneity than the he US EPA toLanders et agram (Stodd

VIRONMENTA

year change the EEM lakall index per

H – minimumFor lakes withof the 31 lake w Paterson (On

a for Blue ChH between 6e was greatere 14) and mpH < 6 in Augerally trackedcomplete dao select the fal. 1987), anddard et al. 19

AL EFFECTS M

of > 0.3 pH kes, and theriod is likely t

m pH) versus mh an annual myears of datantario Minist

halk Lake in 6.4 and 6.8, ar than 6, it hmore variabigust 2012. Fd the overalata set. Simifall index ped the subseq996).

MONITORING

units will gerefore moreto be less th

mean annual mean pH < 6, a. Source of dry of Environ

Ontario, whand a slightlhad more vality than we Figure 15 shl trend in pHilar analyseseriod for lakequent Enviro

G (EEM) PRO

enerally be e feasible to han variabilit

pH, for 63 lakthe pH rangedata: Dr. Normment).

hich over thely increasingriability in pwould expeows that H over this s of variabilite sampling inonmental

OGRAM

95

ty

ke‐e was man

e g pH ect to

ty in n the

PROGRAM

The workProgramtop graphpower (0et al. do larger ANdetect ANchanges to reliabllakes, buto be con Trends in(top graptake onlythe low estatistica The dataFigure 17sensitivecould be provide a

PLAN FOR 20

k by Stoddar. Stoddard eh in Figure 10.8) after 10 not present NC changes. NC changes of 5 µeq L‐1 ly detect thet this prelimnducted bas

n SO4 (bottomph in Figure y 5 years to dend of the raal power afte

for all 7 acid7. This would lakes whichapplied to Aa sufficient s

KM

13 TO 2018

rd et al. (199et al found th16) could detyears, or a tcurves for oAs shown inin the rangeassessed bye desired ANminary observed on data g

m graph in F16), as SO4 idetect an anange in Tableer a decade o

d‐sensitive ld provide anh show pH chANC and SO4

sample size f

MP SO2 ENV

96) on behalfhat annual stect an annutotal changeother effect n the exampe from 7 to 2 Stoddard et

NC changes invation needgathered in 2

Figure 16) cais less variabnnual trend ie 27); smalleof monitorin

akes could an estimate ofhanges beyo

4. As shown for the popu

VIRONMENTA

f of the US Eampling of 5ual ANC tren in ANC of 5sizes, it shoule of Table 227 µeq L‐1, wt al. These ren less than as to be conf2014.

an be reliablyble than ANCin SO4 of 1.2er changes inng.

also be analyf the proporond the specin Figure 16,ulation of int

AL EFFECTS M

EPA is very re5 low ANC‐lond of 0.5 µeq µeq L‐1 afteuld take less27, the KMP which are largesults suggea decade forfirmed in the

y detected sC. Stoddard e2 µeq L‐1 yr‐1

n SO4 would

yzed using artion of the ccified thresh, the 7 acid‐terest.

MONITORING

elevant to thow DOC lakeq L‐1 yr‐1 at her 10 years. Ts time to reliEEM Prograger than theest that it shor the complee statistical p

sooner than et al. found 1, or 12 µeq d be detectab

n approach complete saold. A similasensitive lak

G (EEM) PRO

he KMP EEMes (top curveigh statisticaThough Stodably detect am needs to e decadal ould be feasete set of EEMpower analy

trends in ANthat it woulL‐1per decadble with high

like that in mple of all aar approach kes should

OGRAM

96

M e of al ddard

sible M ses

NC d de (at h

acid‐

P

F

PROGRAM PLAN FO

Figure 15. Long te(coea

OR 2013 TO 2018

erm trends in pH oinciding with thech year.

in Blue Chalk Lake vertical grid line

ke in Ontario. All es) are shown by

KMP SO2 E

sampled pH valuthe yellow triang

NVIRONMENTAL

ues are shown by gles. The mean pH

L EFFECTS MONI

the blue diamonH for each year is

TORING (EEM)

nds. October pH ss shown by the re

PROGRAM

97

samples ed bars for

PROGRAM

Figure 16

PLAN FOR 20

. Statistical poStoddar

KM

13 TO 2018

ower analyserd et al. (1996

P SO2 ENVIR

s for detectin6).

RONMENTAL

ng changes in

EFFECTS MO

lake ANC and

ONITORING (

d SO. Source:

EEM) PROG

: Figure 4 in

GRAM

98

PROGRAM

Figure 17

A similar gthe pH mefor each laof the midrepresentchanges in(pH, ANC,years as c

Referenc

ESSA TecUniveAssesPermfor Ri

PLAN FOR 20

. Illustration oEEM lak

graph could beasurements ake from the ddle 50% of st the 10th to 9n any one yea, SO, base catclass variables

ces:

chnologies, Jersity, Trinityssment Repomit for the Kitio Tinto Alca

KM

13 TO 2018

of hypothetickes.

be generated from each ofbaseline peruch comparis90th percentilear (across all tions) could as (equation 1

. Laurence, y Consultantort in Suppotimat Modean, Kitimat, B

P SO2 ENVIR

cal regional tr

for other parf the seven aciod (discussedsons of pH ches. These datalakes) that arlso be analyzin Stoddard e

Limnotek, Rts, and Univert of the 201rnization ProB.C. 450 pp.

RONMENTAL

ends in the d

rameters (ANcid‐sensitive d in Section 6hange (i.e., 25a could be usre less than ‐0ed using a linet al. 1996).

isk Sciences ersity of Illin13 Applicatiooject. Volum

EFFECTS MO

distribution of

NC, SO, base clakes would b6.2.2). The bo5th to 75th persed to determ0.3. Water qunear mixed‐ef

Internationnois. 2013. Son to Amendme 2: Final Te

ONITORING (

f pH changes

cations). Frombe compared ox represents centiles), and

mine the propuality data froffects model h

al, Rio TintoSulphur Dioxd the P2‐000echnical Rep

EEM) PROG

across the se

m 2015 onwarto the mean the distributd the tails ortions of pHom multiple lahaving lakes a

o Alcan, Trenxide Technic001 Multimeport. Prepare

GRAM

99

et of 7

rds, pH ion

H akes and

nt cal edia ed

PROGRAM

HemondWate

Marmore1996incorScien

StoddardDetec

StoddardMurdCleanAgenResea

PLAN FOR 20

, H.F. 1990. ers Containin

ek, D.R., R.M. Improving rporation of nces 53: 1602

d, J. L., A. D. ction of regi

d, J.L., J.S. Kadoch, J.R. Wen Air Act Amcy, Office ofarch Laborat

KM

13 TO 2018

Acid Neutrang Organic A

M. MacQueepH and alkadissolved or2‐1608.

Newell, N. Sonal acidific

ahl, F.A. Deviebb, and K.Eendments of Research atory, Resear

P SO2 ENVIR

lizing CapacAcids. Enviro

n, C.H.R. Welinity estimarganic carbo

S. Urquhart, cation trends

iney, D.R. DeE. Webster. of 1990. EPA nd Developmrch Triangle

RONMENTAL

ity, Alkalinitn. Sci. Techn

edeles, J. Korates for region. Canadian

and D. Kugles. Water Res

eWalle, C.T. 2003. Respo620/R‐03/0ment. NationPark, NC 277

EFFECTS MO

ty, and Acid‐nol. 24:1486

rman, P.J. Blonal‐scale ac Journal of F

er. 1996. Thesources Rese

Driscoll, A.Tonse of Surfa001. US Envirnal Health a711. 92 pp.

ONITORING (

‐Base Status 6‐1489.

lancher, andcidification mFisheries and

e TIME projeearch 32:252

T. Herlihy, J.Hace Water Cronmental Pnd Environm

EEM) PROG

of Natural

d D.K. McNicmodels: d Aquatic

ect design: I29‐2538.

H. Kellogg, PChemistry to Protection mental Effec

GRAM

100

col.

I.

P.S. the

ts

PROGRAM

AppenEEM S Context

If the KPImitigatio

“PM

In the careal (i.e.,designing Objective

Objective1

Objective234

Hypothe

The pilotsupport t

Lia

Candidat

The lake have excThere wilthan two Suitabilit

The best

PLAN FOR 20

ndix I. LiStudy La

Is for lakes, son, the presc

Pilot liming tMOE/DFO pri

se that an ex not a false g a pilot stud

es

es of the Lim. Restore laecologica

es of the Pilo. Determin. Determin. Determin

sis

t study will bthe followin

iming treatmdverse effec

te Lakes for

or lakes beieeded the Kll be two lako lakes would

ty Criteria

candidates SoftwaterLarge pH

KM

13 TO 2018

iming Trke: Conc

streams andcribed action

to bring the ior to implem

xceedance opositive), thdy for liming

ming Treatmeake pH to itl impacts

ot Study e the optime the chemie the biolog

be designed tg hypothesis

ment will rescts to biologi

Limestone T

ng considereKPI thresholdkes at most ud trigger the

for liming (Wr lakes with fluctuations

P SO2 ENVIR

reatmenceptual

d aquatic bion is:

lake back upmentation”

of the KPI hae following sg.

ent ts pre‐acidifi

um method cal effects ogical effects o

to be able tos:

store lake chical function

Treatment

ed as candidds for receptunder conside requiremen

Weigmann epH < 6.5; s;

RONMENTAL

nt to MitDesign o

ota exceed th

p to pre‐KM

s been obsesection prov

ication chem

of liming. of the liming of the liming

o evaluate w

emistry (i.e.,ing of the la

dates for limtor‐based mderation fornt for facility

et al. 1993) h

EFFECTS MO

tigate Acof Pilot

he threshold

P pH, subjec

erved, measuvides an outl

mical condit

treatment og treatment

whether the

, pH and ANake ecosystem

estone treatitigation, as limestone ty‐based miti

have the follo

ONITORING (

cidic EffeStudy

d for recepto

ct to approv

ured and coline of the a

ion without

on the targeon the targe

evidence su

NC) without cm.

tment will bper the desreatment beigation.

owing chara

EEM) PROG

ects on a

or‐based

al by BC

ncluded to bpproach for

causing adv

et lake et lake

upports or fa

causing

e those thatign of the EEecause any m

acteristics:

GRAM

101

an

be r

verse

ails to

t EM. more

PROGRAM

Additionamonitoribefore an Methods

Initial an

A numbe12

3

4

5

Pre‐limin

Baseline determin

Water chthe annuanions, A

Lake biosamplingdiversitymonthly zone. Adsamplingto assess

PLAN FOR 20

RetentionEvidence Slow fish

ally, the canng purposesnd after trea

s

alyses

er of analyse. The candi. A benefitdesign ofsuch as su

. The amoutarget inclake and t

. A conservto ensure

. The full ereview by

a. Limpr

b. Stch

ng sampling t

sampling mne the impac

hemistry: Thual EEM fall Al and other

ology: The pg phytoplank. Establishinsamples froditional basg macrophyts their utility

KM

13 TO 2018

n time > 3 mof historicalgrowth and

didate lake s. Ideally, it watment.

es will need tidate lake(s)t‐cost analysf the pilot surface or aerunt of limescrease in pHthe lake‐spevative, incree the pH targexperimentay: mestone trerobability of atistical deshanges in lak

to establish

ust be condcts of the lim

he pre‐limingindex sampmetals, as d

pre‐liming bkton, zooplang a robust m May to Oeline monitote biomass, cy for achievin

P SO2 ENVIR

onths; fish populalow food pr

needs to be will be easily

to be conduc) must be asssis of limingtudy (e.g., arial applicatistone to be will be calccific titrationmental apprget is not excal design of

eatment exbeing succesign expert –ke chemistry

chemical an

ucted prior tming treatme

g baseline fople. This samdescribed for

baseline forankton, and baseline fo

October, obtaoring could coverage anng the objec

RONMENTAL

tions; and roduction.

safely accesy accessible t

cted before sessed in terg treatmentaccessibility ion, and thee applied in culated (i.e., n curve). roach will beceeded. f the pilot s

pert – to eessful; and,– to ensure y and biology

nd biological

to applicatioent on lake c

or water chemple includer annual mo

lake biologfish commuor phytoplanained from ninclude estind diversity; tives of the

EFFECTS MO

ssible, both to facilitate

implementirms of its sut options wiwill influencost of repethe treatmbased on th

e designed f

study will b

ensure the

the study hy (e.g., powe

baseline

on of the limchemistry an

emistry condes full cheminitoring in t

gical conditunities to estnkton and znear the midmating zoophowever, fupilot study.

ONITORING (

for treatmerepeated m

ng a pilot limuitability for ill be needence the treaeated monitent in ordehe physical

for the appli

be finalized,

treatment

as ability toer analyses).

mestone to bnd biology.

ditions will bistry (pH, ANhe EEM.

tions will betimate biomzooplanktonddle of the laplankton prourther evalu

EEM) PROG

nt and monitoring vis

ming treatmtreatment. ed to informatment metoring). er to achieveproperties o

ication limes

, with addit

has the hig

o correctly d.

e able

be establisheNC, base cat

e establishemass, densityn will requirake in the peoductivity anuation is req

GRAM

102

sits

ent.

m the hods,

e the of the

stone

tional

ghest

etect

ed by tions,

ed by y and re six elagic nd/or uired

PROGRAM

Buffer co

Calcite (a2005). It (Weigmacapacity (Weigmaused exp Applicati

Given theslurry froaccessiblsurface (be the onneed to bhave had Post‐limi

After thebiology wfor pre‐libiology). evaluate Analyses

Pre‐ and the impathe statis Documen

Documentreatmenwithin th

PLAN FOR 20

ompound

agricultural lis relatively ann et al. 199but lower soann et al. 199perimentally

on of liming

e small size oom a tank one lakes, whiOlem 1990, nly option fobe carefully d mixed succ

ng chemical

e applicationwould occur ming monitoAt that poind, and decis

of pre‐ and

post‐liming acts of the limstical and bio

ntation and

ntation of thnt implemenhe annual EE

KM

13 TO 2018

imestone) isinexpensive92). Dolomitolubility, but92). Numeroor are diffic

g treatment

of the lakes nboard a boach ensures bpg. 15‐59). or lakes whicevaluated (ecess (Olem 1

l and biologi

n of the limesannually fororing (i.e., fant, the chemions made r

post‐liming

monitoring mestone treological sign

reporting

he study desntation, monM reporting

P SO2 ENVIR

s the most coe, widely avate limestonet an acceptaous other limcult to work w

of interest iat would be both rapid dDelivery of lch are not ace.g., safety, l1990, pg. 15‐

cal monitori

stone treatmr three yearsall index sammical and bioregarding fut

monitoring

data would atment on laificance of t

ign for the pnitoring resug framework

RONMENTAL

ommonly usailable, natue is chemicalble alternatming compouwith (Clair a

n the KMP sthe most coissolution animestone byccessible by lake’s value,‐61 to 15‐63

ing

ment, monitos, following tmpling for chlogical effecture monito

data

be compareake chemisthose impact

pilot limestolts, and subsk.

EFFECTS MO

sed liming coral, non‐toxilly similar, wive when caunds exist band Hindar 2

study area, aost‐effective nd accurate y helicopter road, and th, degree of p).

oring of watthe same aphemistry, six ctiveness of tring.

ed and analytry and biolots.

ne treatmensequent ana

ONITORING (

ompound (Cic and easy twith slightly hlcite is not rut most hav2005).

application oapproach fodelivery acror fixed winhe pros and pH control);

ter chemistrpproach as dmonthly samthe program

yzed in ordeogical condit

nt, preliminaalyses would

EEM) PROG

Clair and Hinto work withhigher buffereadily availave only been

of a limestonor road‐ross the lakeng aircraft wcons would these metho

y and lake described abmples for m would be

r to determiions and ass

ary analyses,d be reported

GRAM

103

dar h ring able

ne

e ould

ods

ove

ine sess

, d

kitimat modernization project environmental effects monitoring

Documents