1. Kiggavik Uranium Mine Project Presentation to the Nunavut Impact Review Board Final Hearing Baker Lake, NU March 2-14, 2015 1

2. Overview 1.Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – Fisheries Protection Program Mandate, Legislation and Policy 2.Technical Comments and Recommendations 3.Conclusions 4.Questions and Comments 2

3. DFO’s Fisheries Protection Program - Mandate The mandate of the Fisheries Protection Program is to maintain the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. 3 J. Stewart DFO

4. Fisheries Protection Program – Legislation Fisheries Act Section 35 Prohibits serious harm to fish Allows for authorization of impacts with conditions Sections 20, 21 Requirement for sufficient water, fish passage Species at Risk Act Sections 32, 33, 58 Prohibits killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking of listed species, destruction of residence, critical habitat Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Article 12) 4

5. Fisheries Protection Program – Policy Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013) Guidance on implementing the fisheries protection provisions of Fisheries Act 5 Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (2013) Guidance on measures to offset serious harm to fish

6. Technical Comments and Recommendations Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s comments are focused on the following areas: Aquatic Environment Blasting, water crossings, water withdrawals Conceptual Fisheries Offsetting Plan Management and Monitoring Plans Fish habitat and fish passage Reflooding Andrew Lake Pit 6

7. 7 Arctic Grayling AREVA FEIS Appendix 2E P Cott DFO Andrew Lake and Pit Points to streams with spawning habitat Flow of diverted water

8. Aquatic Environment - Blasting Issue: There is inadequate information about the exclusion net to be used to exclude fish from blasting areas near Andrew Lake Pit. Recommendations (#1, 2): Ensure exclusion nets are sized appropriately. Ensure exclusion nets do not obstruct fish passage (e.g., spawning Arctic Grayling). 8

9. 24 9 AREVA FEIS Appendix 2M

10. Issue: The number and type of water crossings described by AREVA are inconsistent. Recommendations (#3, 5): Ensure water crossings have minimal infilling and avoid obstructing fish passage. Provide a final list all water crossings, including design, and identifying which affect fish-frequented watercourses, for assessment before construction. 10 Aquatic Environment – Water Crossings

11. 24 11 Lake Trout Black areas indicate spawning habitat AREVA FEIS Appendix 5P MUSHROOM LAKE (32 ha) SIAMESE LAKE (2792 ha) DFO

12. Aquatic Environment – Water Withdrawals Issue: Inadequate information to determine effects of water withdrawal on Lake Trout. Recommendations (#6): Evaluate effects of 1.6—11% loss of spawning habitat on Lake Trout populations in Siamese and Mushroom Lakes, consider other options for water withdrawal. 12

13. Conceptual Fisheries Offsetting Plan Issue: Inadequate information to determine residual serious to fish that will require offsetting. Recommendations (#7-8): Consider all aspects of the Project that may cause serious harm to fish, including amount of habitat affected, mitigation measures, and the residual serious harm to fish that remains. 13

14. Management and Monitoring Plans – Monitoring Fish Habitat and Fish Passage Issue: the frequency of monitoring for water crossings is inadequate to confirm no barriers to fish passage and crossing stability. Recommendations (#9, 10): Revise plans to monitor water crossing stability during spring freshet daily, to identify need to mitigate ice jamming. Revise plans to inspect bridges and culverts at least once annually for the life of the Project, at low flow. 14

15. Management and Monitoring Plans – Monitoring Fish Habitat and Fish Passage Issue: Water withdrawal may impact fish habitat and fish passage during periods of low water flow. Recommendations (#11): Monitor water levels in Mushroom and Siamese lakes to ensure no impacts to fish passage or fish habitat as a consequence of water withdrawal, particularly during years of low precipitation. 15

16. Management and Monitoring Plans – Reflooding of Andrew Lake Pit Issue: Inadequate information on plans for Andrew Lake Pit to ensure suitable habitat for fish after reflooding. Recommendations (#13): To support closure goals, ensure that Andrew Lake Pit contains, or provides access to, suitable fish habitat for all life stages (including overwintering) when reflooded. Develop plans to address the potential need for providing suitable habitat for fish in Andrew Lake Pit. 16 AREVA FEIS Volume 2

17. Conclusion Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work with the Proponent and stakeholders, including potentially impacted communities, to ensure that: o Appropriate mitigation and monitoring programs are implemented; o Offsetting Plan is adequate; o Other inconsistencies and inadequacies of information are addressed. 17

18. 24 18 Thank You Merci ? Questions?