CIGAR LAKE PROJECT - Environment

CIG

AR

LA

KE

PR

OJE

CT

Cigar Lake Project

Water Inflow Management Project

Project Description

December 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Need for and Purpose of the Proposed Project ...................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of this Report.......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3.1 Historical Activities ............................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Proponent ............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4.1 Contacts for the Proposed Project.......................................................... 1-3 1.5 Scope of the Proposed Project ............................................................................. 1-4

1.5.1 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Proposed Project ..................... 1-4 1.5.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries.......................................................... 1-4

1.6 Authorizations Required ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.6.1 The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act...................................... 1-5 1.6.2 The Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act .............................. 1-5 1.6.3 The Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation...................................................................................... 1-5

1.7 Report Organization............................................................................................. 1-6 2.0 DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Organization Structure ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Cameco SHEQ Management System .................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Location – Site Specific Details .............................................................. 2-2 2.4 Project Components ............................................................................................. 2-2

2.4.1 Dewatering Facilities ............................................................................. 2-2 2.4.2 Water Treatment Facilities..................................................................... 2-3 2.4.3 Water Discharge..................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.4 Air Emissions......................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.5 Other Waste Management...................................................................... 2-6

2.5 Decommissioning and Reclamation .................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Project Schedule................................................................................................... 2-6

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Climate and Air.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Climate................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Geological Features ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Hydrology .............................................................................................. 3-2 3.4 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.1 Water Quality......................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Sediment Quality ................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 Benthic Invertebrates ............................................................................. 3-4 3.4.4 Fish Chemistry ....................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.5 Fish Populations..................................................................................... 3-6

Cameco Corporation i


3.4.6 Fish Habitat............................................................................................ 3-6 3.5 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................... 3-7

3.5.1 Soils and Terrain .................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................. 3-7 3.5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................ 3-8

3.6 Resource Uses...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.6.1 Heritage Resources ................................................................................ 3-9 3.6.2 Traditional and Non-traditional Land Use............................................. 3-9 3.6.3 Socio-economic Environment.............................................................. 3-10

4.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................... 4-1 4.1 Assessment Methods............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Effects Classification ............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Significance............................................................................................ 4-3

4.2 Potential Environmental Effects from the Project and Proposed Mitigation....... 4-3 4.2.1 Atmospheric Environment ..................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Surface Water......................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.3 Aquatic Biology..................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.4 Terrestrial Environment ......................................................................... 4-6 4.2.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.6 Human Health ........................................................................................ 4-7 4.2.7 Aboriginal Interest ................................................................................. 4-8 4.2.8 Land and Resource Use ......................................................................... 4-8 4.2.9 Physical and Cultural Heritage .............................................................. 4-8

4.3 Classification of Residual Effects and Determination of Significance................ 4-9 4.3.1 Surface Water......................................................................................... 4-9 4.3.2 Aquatic Biology..................................................................................... 4-9 4.3.3 Terrestrial Environment ....................................................................... 4-10 4.3.4 Human Health ...................................................................................... 4-11

5.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION......................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 7-1

Cameco Corporation ii


List of Tables Table 3-1 Physical Characteristics and Hydrological Information for Area Water Bodies

.................................................................................................................................. 3-3

List of Tables (con’t) Following Report

Table 2-2 Schedule for the Cigar Lake Operation Water Inflow Management Project Table 4-1 Project-Environment Interaction Matrix Table 4-2 Potential Issues, Proposed Mitigation and Predicted Residual Effects for the

Project Table 4-3 Determination of Signifance for Residual Effects Resulting from the Project Table 4-4 Summary of Potential Residual Effects from the Project

List of Figures Following Report

Figure 1-1: Location of the Cigar Lake Mine Site Figure 2-1: Integrated Management Organization Chart for the Cigar Lake Operation Figure 2-2: Proposed Concept for Routine and Non-Routine Water Discharge to Seru

Bay Figure 2-3: Schematic Diagram of Existing and Proposed Water Treatment and Release

Circuits Figure 2-4: Location of Existing Pipeline and Water Discharge Course to Aline Lake and

Seru Bay Figure 2-5: Aline Lake Figure 2-6: Aline Creek Figure 2-7: Cross-section of a Typical Pipe Bench and Access Road Design Figure 2-8: Vegetation Along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor Adjacent to the Existing

Access Road

Cameco Corporation iii

GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 1 - General Project Overview

1.0 GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

On October 22, 2006, an inflow of water occurred underground in a development area of the Cigar Lake mine. The inflow rate exceeded the pumping capacity of the mine sumps. Consequently the mine was allowed to fill with water on October 23, 2006. As a result of this inflow event, as well of a third party assessment of the hydrogeology in the area of the Cigar Lake mine, Cameco Corporation (Cameco) is proposing a Water Inflow Management Project (the Project). This project is proposed to increase the mine’s water-handling capabilities for future routine and potential non-routine inflows above the capability previously assessed (i.e., 550 cubic metres per hour [m3/hr] of continuous flow for a one year period or equivalent). In order to more effectively handle potential future inflows, a new treated effluent discharge system is proposed, which will handle both routine and non-routine inflows. The proposed work includes modifications to the water handling and discharge infrastructure to handle the range of proposed flows, including improvements to the underground and surface water handling, and water treatment facilities. In addition, Cameco proposes to move the point of discharge for treated effluent resulting from routine and non-routine inflows to Seru Bay to prevent potential environmental effects in the Aline Creek drainage (e.g., erosional effects from increased flows and toxicological effects from increased loadings) that could result from the increased volume of water discharged.

1.1.1 Project Location

The Project is located at Cigar Lake, approximately 660 km north of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on provincial surface lease # 200088 (Figure 1-1). Access to the Cigar Lake mine is via an all weather, controlled access, gravel road from Provincial Road 905, or by air. The geographic coordinates for the Cigar Lake mine are latitude 58°04' 11" North, and longitude 104°32' 17" West (Canadian National Topographic Map Sheet 74I2).

The nearest community is Wollaston Lake, which is approximately 80 km east of the Cigar Lake mine. Other communities in the Athabasca region include Camsell Portage, Uranium City, Fond-du-Lac, Stony Rapids, and Black Lake. The Cigar Lake mine is in close proximity to the AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (Areva) McClean Lake Operation and Cameco’s Rabbit Lake Operation.

1.1.2 Need for and Purpose of the Proposed Project

The purpose of the Project is to establish a water handling system that will allow for the safe release of treated effluent resulting from both routine and non-routine inflows. Based upon the October 2006 inflow experience, as well as subsequent hydrogeological studies of the Cigar Lake mine, Cameco recognizes that the

Cameco Corporation 1-1

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 1 – General Project Overview

capacity of the original non-routine water handling, treatment and discharge systems (i.e., for handling a continuous discharge rate of up to 550 m3/hr for a one-year period) is not adequate. Currently, both routine and non-routine operational water flows are directed to the Aline Lake drainage, a system that directly discharges to Seru Bay. The anticipated increase in flow rate of non-routine inflow has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects in the Aline Creek drainage due to erosion and the accumulation of constituents of potential concern (COPCs). Therefore it is proposed that a new treated effluent discharge system be installed which will discharge directly to Seru Bay of Waterbury Lake.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this document is to provide the necessary information so that determinations can be made both by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), with respect to the applicability of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), and by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment (SMOE) as to the applicability of The Environmental Assessment Act for Saskatchewan (SEAA). The information contained herein will also be used to confirm the scope of the Project and the scope of the assessment in accordance with the CEAA and SEAA. This document has been prepared in accordance with the guidance set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) “Operational Policy Statement Preparing Project Descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act” (CEA Agency 2007), by the SMOE “Guidelines for the Preparation of a Project Proposal” (SMOE 2003), and by the Major Projects Management Office’s [MPMO] draft “Guide to Preparing a Project Description for a Major Resource Project” (Government of Canada 2008).

1.3 Background

1.3.1 Historical Activities

The Cigar Lake ore deposit was discovered in 1981 and is the world's second largest known high-grade uranium deposit, with an estimated resource of 226.3 million pounds (lbs) of U3O8. The first mineshaft (No.1 Shaft) was completed in 1990, and thereafter, limited underground development was completed to support underground exploration and testing of mine methods. Upon approval of The 1995 Cigar Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement (Cigar Lake Mining Corporation [CLMC] 1995), the Cigar Lake mine received licensing approval for the construction and operation of a test mine and associated facilities. The Jet Boring System (JBS) of mineral extraction was initially tested at the Cigar Lake mine in 1992, and again during test mining in 1999 and 2000.

In December 2004, an Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) was completed to support the construction, operation and conceptual decommissioning of the Cigar Lake mine (Cameco 2004). The 2004 EASR evaluated the



continuous discharge of treated effluent under routine operating conditions (i.e., average rates of 60 to 90 m3/hr with an upper bound rate of 135 m3/hr), as well as non-routine operations and inflow conditions of up to 550 m3/hr continuous discharge for a one-year period (Cameco 2004). Discharge of mine water under this later circumstance is through the same water handling system that discharges mine water during routine operations to Aline Lake, and subsequently into Seru Bay. No significant environmental effects from the discharge of these quantities of routine and non-routine mine water were predicted in the 2004 EASR (Cameco 2004). The environmental monitoring completed in 2007 (CanNorth 2008) further supports predictions from the 2004 EASR.

In 2004, the CNSC granted Cameco a full construction license, under which mine development and installation of surface facilities continued until October 22, 2006. At that time, an inflow of mine water into the 465 meter (m) level halted development of the mine workings. Since this inflow, Cameco has established a program to seal the mine water inflow point, and has recently received regulatory approvals to dewater the mine workings and secure the mine in a safe and orderly manner. Currently, Cameco has approvals to treat and discharge the water from this non-routine inflow through the system described above.

1.4 Proponent

The Project is managed and will be operated by Cameco, on behalf of the Cigar Lake Joint Venture (CLJV). The CLJV is composed of Cameco (50.025%), Areva (37.1%), Idemitsu Uranium Exploration Canada Ltd. (7.875%), and TEPCO Resources Inc. (5%). For the purposes of the Project, Cameco is the proponent.

1.4.1 Contacts for the Proposed Project

Additional information and/or clarification can be obtained by contacting:

Mr. Merlin Seier Superintendent, Quality, Compliance and Licensing Cigar Lake Project Cameco Corporation 2121 11th Street West Saskatoon, SK S7M 1J3 Telephone: 306-956-6533

or

Mr. Glen White Manager, Environmental Assessment Cameco Corporation 2121 11th Street West Saskatoon, SK S7M 1J3 Telephone: 306-956-6200


Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 1 – General Project Overview 1.5 Scope of the Proposed Project

The activities that will be associated with the Project include:

• Construction of two new parallel discharge pipelines that will deliver treated water to the same discharge point into Seru Bay of Waterbury Lake. The smaller discharge pipeline will transfer treated routine water from routine inflows, while the in non-routine circumstances, a combination of the two pipelines would be used as required; and

• Modifications to the current water handling and effluent treatment release facilities. This is limited to the upgrading and installation of pumps and piping as necessary to connect the proposed discharge pipelines to the existing water treatment facility infrastructure and ponds.

1.5.1 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Proposed Project

Alternatives to adding a dedicated surface dewatering outlet are:

• Non-routine inflows upon treatment could be temporarily stored underground; however, the potentially large volumes of water that can be generated make this provision impractical due to the relatively low volumes available underground;

• Non-routine inflows could be temporarily stored in a naturally occurring depression on surface. Again, given the volume of water involved, this would only be practical for short duration inflows lasting a few days, and may have the potential for adverse environmental effects;

• Non-routine inflows could be treated and discharged to the existing Aline Lake drainage system; however, the anticipated rate of flow in these circumstances may potentially cause erosion to the Aline Lake drainage system;

• Routine inflows could continue to be treated and discharged to the existing Aline Lake drainage system, with non-routine inflows discharged through a new pipeline directly into Seru Bay.

The proposed Project is considered the best option because it avoids the potential environmental impacts noted in the first three options, and the new treated effluent discharge system will provide a single point discharge location for the Cigar Lake Mine in response to the fourth option. The proposed option will facilitate maintenance and monitoring activities, and will prevent the long-term accumulation of contaminants over time in the Aline Creek drainage.

1.5.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries

The geographic study areas for the Project are based on the study areas defined in the 2004 Cigar Lake EASR (Cameco 2004):

• Site Study Area: all areas within the bounds of the Cigar Lake mine surface lease.



• Local Study Area (LSA): the area outside the site study area where there is a reasonable potential for effects due to either ongoing routine activities or due to possible malfunctions/accidents; and

• Regional Study Area (RSA): the RSA includes the Athabasca Basin and the communities of Camsell Portage, Uranium City, Fond-du-Lac, Stony Rapids, Black Lake, and Wollaston.

The timeframe for the assessment encompasses the construction period for the Project, as well as the approximate 40-year operating life and decommissioning period for the Cigar Lake mine.

1.6 Authorizations Required

1.6.1 The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

The Project represents a change to the Cigar Lake Operating License UMCL-MINE-CIGAR.021/2009, thus, the implementation of the Project will require a licensing decision(s) by the CNSC. The issuance or amendment of a CNSC license under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) is a “trigger” under the Law List Regulations of the CEAA. As well, the implementation of the Project may require an authorization for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. The issuance of a permit under these acts is a “trigger” under the Law List Regulations of the CEAA. There are no identified exclusions from environmental assessment for the Project, pursuant to Section 7 of the CEAA and Schedule I of the Exclusion List Regulations of the CEAA. Authorizations may also be required from the other federal regulatory agencies, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada (EC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and Health Canada (HC).

1.6.2 The Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act

The proposed development of the Project represents a change to Cigar Lake Project’s Approval to Operate a Pollutant Control Facility IO-224. In Saskatchewan, a change to an approved development is subject to the provisions of Section 16 of the SEAA.

1.6.3 The Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation

If an assessment is required, it is expected that the federal and provincial environmental assessment processes, directed respectively by the CEAA and SEAA, will be coordinated under the Canada-Saskatchewan Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2005). Under the agreement, the Province of Saskatchewan, Environmental Assessment Branch, will be the lead agency and contact for the proposed Project.


Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 1 – General Project Overview 1.7 Report Organization

Information provided in this document is organized as follows:

• Section 2.0 Detailed Project Components: provides a comprehensive project description, identifying and characterizing project components/activities that may interact with the environment;

• Section 3.0 Existing Environment: provides a broad description of the existing environmental conditions surrounding the Project, and summarizes the environmental effects associated with current operations;

• Section 4.0 Public Consultation: provides a description of ongoing or proposed public consultation activities, and summarizes the questions and issues raised by the public throughout the consultation activities; and

• Section 5.0 Potential Environment Effects of the Project and Proposed Mitigation Measures: provides a description of potential effects on the environment from each of the project components/activities, taking into consideration mitigation measures.


DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 2 - Detailed Project Information

2.0 DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Overview

The Project will establish a new treated effluent discharge system, which will handle both routine and non-routine inflows. The physical works include construction of two pipelines, the smaller of which will transfer treated water from routine inflows. During non-routine circumstances, a combination of the two pipelines would be used as required, to transfer treated non-routine inflow water directly to Seru Bay. Construction activities also includes a new monitoring pond pumphouse, as well as the installation of equipment to connect the pipelines with existing infrastructure and ponds.

Cameco has commissioned hydrogeological modeling on the Cigar Lake deposit by third party experts. Current rock mass conditions were used in the model, which was calibrated based on data collected from both the regular mine seepage rate and from the mine inflow events. The analysis indicates the expected inflow rate following a ground failure, as experienced in October 2006, could achieve a maximum inflow rate of 1,250 m3/hr. However, the model predicted that the flow rate could be expected to decay and remain steady at 900 m3/hr after approximately three days.

Cameco proposes to use a derived release limit approach to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment, and to establish “expected” and “upper bound” limits for routine and non-routine inflows. Proposed modeling scenarios will include a range of inflow scenarios to determine the various combinations of routine and non-routine inflows within which significant adverse effects to the environment would not occur.

2.2 Organization Structure

The senior management positions for Cigar Lake as of June 2008 are shown in Figure 2-1. This organization chart shows those positions relevant to protection of the environment, the health and safety of workers and the public, and the maintenance of security for Cigar Lake.

2.2.1 Cameco SHEQ Management System

Cameco’s integrated Safety, Health, Environment, and Quality (SHEQ) policy is the foundation of the corporate and site management system and links corporate and site objectives. The Cameco SHEQ management system has been developed in consideration of applicable regulatory and statutory requirements, including the NSCA and Regulations, industry standards and best practices, and is defined by the following principles:

• keeping safety and health hazards (including radiation exposures) and environmental risk as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA);


Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 2 – Detailed Project Information

• preventing pollution; • complying with and moving beyond legal requirements; • ensuring quality of processes, products, and services; and • continually improving overall performance.

The overall SHEQ management system is defined and managed through the following Corporate and site level core programs:

• Quality Management Program; • Environmental Management Program; • Safety and Health Management Program; • Radiation Protection Program; • Contractor Safety, Health and Environment Management Program; and • Emergency Preparedness and Response Program.

These core programs are currently in place at the Cigar Lake Project, and are therefore applicable to the Project. No changes are required to the existing core programs, as a result of the Project.

2.3 Project Location – Site Specific Details

Although the exact location of the new treated effluent discharge point has not yet been confirmed, its approximate location will be near to coordinates 58° 04' 9.82" North, 104° 30' 45.23" West (Figure 2-2).

2.4 Project Components

2.4.1 Dewatering Facilities

2.4.1.1 Existing Mine Dewatering Facilities

The Cigar Lake Project’s existing or previously planned mine dewatering systems were designed to have a pumping capacity of 2,300 m3/hr, consisting of the following:

• west mine water pumps (420 m level) – capacity 250 m3/hr; • east mine water pumps (420 m level) – capacity 250 m3/hr; • non-routine mine water pumps (480 m level) – capacity 800 m3/hr; • surface emergency mine dewatering pumps – capacity 1,000 m3/hr; and • surface water runoff system – capacity 50 m3/hr.

2.4.1.2 Changes Required to Dewatering Facilities

There are no proposed increases to this dewatering capacity. This said, Cameco is in the process of examining the reliability of the dewatering system to manage routine and non-routine inflows in the order of 3,000 m3/hr. This will potentially



include additional standby components to increase reliability. Extra underground pumps may be installed to ensure immediate replacement in case a pump stops functioning.

2.4.2 Water Treatment Facilities

2.4.2.1 Existing Water Treatment Facilities

The Cigar Lake mine treats all routine site wastewater except sewage using a water treatment plant (WTP). Waste water at the Cigar Lake site includes:

• underground mine water; • drainage from the ore storage facility, waste rock stockpiles, and filter cake

storage pond; • water from the various surface sumps; • surface runoff water; and • grey water from the mine dry facility.

From these various sources, the waste water is piped within secondary containment to the WTP or to a collection pond. Treatment of the waste water in the WTP consists of the addition of various chemicals to reduce radium, suspended solids, and adjust the pH to meet acceptable discharge levels. The clarified water is fed through sand filters to complete removal of solids. Treated effluent is directed to the treated water holding tank. Water from this tank is either re-circulated to the mine for re-use, or directed to the monitoring ponds pumphouse for distribution to one of the monitoring ponds. Treated water is recycled as much as possible for re-use underground. Volumes that are in excess of mine and other process requirements are piped from the treated water holding tank to the monitoring ponds pumphouse to one of the four monitoring ponds.

A water sample is collected during the filling of each monitoring pond and send for analysis, prior to release to the receiving environment. Cameco holds each monitoring pond of treated effluent until analysis confirms that licensed effluent release criteria have been met, and the effluent is acceptable for release to the environment. Water batches that do not meet the acceptable quality release levels are directed back to the WTP for re-processing.

A second collection pond was built to provide backup treatment capacity to the WTP and to provide increased storage capacity to handle large inflows of water into the mine in the order of 2,000 m3/hr. Two reagent launder buildings allow the addition of chemicals directly to the water entering the pond. In addition, the size of the pond allows sufficient opportunity for confirmatory water quality sampling prior to release to the receiving environment. Provided that the quality release standards are achieved, this second collection pond reduces or eliminates the need to further treat the water through the WTP.



2.4.2.2 Changes Required to Water Treatment Facilities

The water treatment system will be designed to manage routine and non-routine inflows in the order of 3,000 m3/hr. A derived release limit approach will be used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment, and to establish “expected” and “upper bound” limits for routine and non-routine inflows. The proposed work includes new water handling and discharge infrastructure designed to handle the range of proposed flows, including improvements to the underground and surface water handling, and water treatment facilities. Figure 2-3 shows a schematic diagram of the proposed water treatment and discharge system.

2.4.3 Water Discharge

2.4.3.1 Existing Treated Water Discharge

The existing discharge system was converted from a continuous discharge system to a batch treat and release system. The current treated effluent discharge rate to the environment varies up to 500 m3/hr, depending on the size of the monitoring pond the water is being released from. Pump discharge capacity is 833 m3/hr. A surface pipeline discharges water from the existing monitoring ponds pump house to a muskeg area that drains to Aline Lake (Figure 2-4). Aline Lake (Figure 2-5) ultimately discharges to Seru Bay through Aline Creek (Figure 2-6).

2.4.3.2 Changes Required to Treated Water Discharge

The Project will provide a new treated effluent discharge system, which will handle both routine and non-routine inflows. A new monitoring pond pumphouse that connects the WTP to the discharge system will also be established, and is expected to have a discharge capacity of up to 2,000 m3/hr. It is intended that all treated effluent be discharged through two pipelines directly to a single point in Seru Bay from this new system. The pipelines will have a length of approximately 2.3 km, and will tie into the WTP effluent monitoring pond discharge and collection pond treatment outlets. Several options are being considered for the design, routing and final discharge point of this new dewatering system. The final design selection will be the best combination that best reduces environmental risk, ease of operability, and cost effective construction and maintenance.

Pipeline Routing

Two options under consideration for the new pipeline routing are:

• construct the pipelines across the existing site and follow the main access road and new power line corridor to Seru Bay making best use of existing cleared and disturbed land where possible; or

• construct the pipelines to pass behind the stockpiles area and follow a corridor adjacent to the existing access roads.



Figure 2-7 shows the routing of both options under consideration. The pipelines will require a corridor approximately 12 to 15 m in width to accommodate a supporting bench and access pathway for servicing and inspection (Figure 2-8). Existing cleared areas will be used where possible, but it is anticipated areas adjacent to existing roads may require some additional clearing. Figure 2-8 shows the vegetation and typical landscape of areas that may have to be cleared for the corridor. Although rare plants are know to occur around Aline Creek, at the inlet into Seru Bay, it is anticipated that construction activities for the Project would avoid disturbance to this area. However, a detailed investigation for rare plants, as well as heritage resources would be completed along the proposed pipeline corridor, prior to construction. The final design selection will be the best combination of minimizing environmental risk coupled with cost effective construction and maintenance.

Discharge Point

The Seru Bay discharge point options under consideration include:

• extending the pipelines bench into the bay, so that treated effluent is discharged into deeper waters, possibly through a diffuser system;

• floating the pipelines on the water out into the deeper parts of the bay; • burying the pipelines into the lakebed, and discharging into deeper waters; or • discharging through a manifold that would run along the shoreline as far as

would be required to reduce erosion.

The final design selection will be the best combination of minimizing environmental risk coupled with cost effective construction and maintenance.

Discharge Rate

This variation in rate will be a result of a combination of batch and continuous discharge of treated water in the order of 3,000 m3/hr. As previously mentioned, Cameco proposes to use a derived release limit approach to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment, and establish “expected” and “upper bound” limits for routine and non-routine inflows. Proposed modeling scenarios will include a range of inflow scenarios to determine the various combinations of routine and non-routine inflows within which significant adverse effects to the environment would not occur.

2.4.4 Air Emissions

Airborne emission control systems and practices currently in place at the Cigar Lake site will be applied to all phases of the Project. Development of the Project may result in some localized, temporary air quality effects from clearing and grading, heavy equipment operation, and vehicle traffic. Appropriate dust suppression measures will be taken, as are currently employed, to maintain air quality within accepted standards.




2.4.5 Other Waste Management

The sources of wastes during construction can be categorized as follows:

• contaminated waste (e.g., waste materials that may be chemically or radiologically contaminated);

• industrial waste (e.g., off-cuts and over supplied items); • hazardous substances (e.g., solvents, paints and chemicals); and • domestic waste (e.g., garbage).

Management of these areas will be generally handled as follows:

• contaminated waste will be identified properly and disposed of in accordance with standard site procedures for this type of material;

• industrial waste will be stored on the construction site and where possible will be shipped off site for recycling. Should any hazardous waste be generated, it will be handled in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Storage and Transportation Regulation;

• hazardous substances will be collected properly and disposed of in accordance with standard site procedures; and

• domestic waste will be properly collected and disposed of in a similar manner to other garbage disposal procedures on site.

2.5 Decommissioning and Reclamation

A conceptual decommissioning plan, which would be implemented at the end of the economic life of the Cigar Lake mine, has been developed and approved, and supporting financial assurances are in place. No significant change to the conceptual decommissioning plan is anticipated.

2.6 Project Schedule

Cameco anticipates that all approvals, engineering, construction and commissioning activities for the proposed treated effluent discharge will be completed or in place prior to Phase 5 of the Cigar Lake mine development, currently scheduled for 2010. A preliminary schedule of the potential activities required to achieve this objective is shown in Table 2-2.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 3 – Existing Environment

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The site conditions at the Cigar Lake Project are well understood because an abundance of environmental data has been collected since the development of the test mine in 1998. The following sections describe the existing environment using data summarized in the 2004 EASR (Cameco 2004), in addition to results from the comprehensive aquatic environmental monitoring program for the Cigar Lake mine completed in 2007 (Canadian North Environment Services [CanNorth] 2008).

3.1 Climate and Air

3.1.1 Climate

A climatological station has operated at the Cigar Lake mine since 1998. Based on data recorded from 1998 to 2003, the mean annual temperature is –2.2 degrees Celsius (°C), and the frost period is typically less than 90 days (Cameco 2004). The local climate at Cigar Lake is characteristic of northern Saskatchewan (i.e., characterized by short, cool, moist summers and extremely cold snowy winters). Over the period of record, the mean minimum monthly temperature for January is –21.5°C, and for July is 16.2°C (Cameco 2004). Mean annual precipitation was approximately 510 millimeters (mm), of which more than half occurred between June and September. Mean annual lake evapotranspiration is estimated to be about 365.3 mm. The prevailing annual wind direction in the region is from the west, with a mean wind speed of 11.7 km/hr. The average annual wind speed from all directional vectors is 12.4 km/hr.

3.1.2 Air Quality

Ambient air quality has been monitored by CLMC since 1989. The average total suspended particulates (TSP) in air around the mine from 1989 to 2003 was 21.2 μg/m3 (Cameco 2004), which is below the Saskatchewan Air Quality Standard for annual TSP (70 μg/m3 [SMOE 2007]). Airborne concentrations of other analytes are in the range of those typically considered background (Cameco 2004). Sulphation plates, which provide an indication of sulphur dioxide (SO2) concentrations, particulate sulphate, hydrogen sulphide, and sulphuric acid mist have been used to measure air quality near the test mine since 1988. Monitoring data from 1988 to 2003 have shown concentrations averaging 0.5 mg SO3/100 cm2/30 days (Cameco 2004). The Saskatchewan Air Quality Standard is 30 mg SO3/100 cm2/30 days (Cameco 2004).

3.2 Geological Features

The region surrounding the Cigar Lake mine lies within the Churchill Province of the Canadian Shield in the physiographic division of the Athabasca Plains (Cameco 2004). The Athabasca Plain is underlain by the Athabasca Basin, which is comprised of relatively undisturbed Athabasca Group sedimentary rocks of Helikian or Middle Proterozoic age (approximately 1,000 to 1,750 million years old), with the unconformity overlying highly contorted metamorphic basement rocks of Aphebian, or



Lower Proterozoic age (more than 1,750 to 2,500 million years old) (Cameco 2004). The unconformity at the base of the Athabasca Group is characterized by the occurrence of uranium deposits, particularly in the eastern portion of the basin. The surface of these basement rocks was subjected to extensive weathering and is characterized by a lateritic zone approximately 50 m thick (Cameco 2004).

3.3 Hydrogeology

The hydrostratigraphy consists of a thin sand and gravel till to sandy silt till overburden overlying sandstone bedrock (CLMC 1995a). The overburden has a hydraulic conductivity representative of sand (1x10-5 m/s). The upper 10 m of the sandstone bedrock is slightly more permeable (the hydraulic conductivity is 1x10-4 m/s), and groundwater flow is generally in the upper part of the sandstone and directionally toward Aline Lake, Cigar Lake, and Waterbury Lake.

The lower hydraulic conductivity of the overburden relative to the upper fractured bedrock results in ponding of surface waters in closed depressions or depressions with restricted outflow. Exploration drill holes, which intersect the fractured bedrock near Waterbury Lake, are generally artesian, indicating that the lake is likely an area of regional groundwater discharge.

3.3.1 Hydrology

Regionally, lakes are ice-covered for more than half the year and deeper lakes, such as Waterbury, are weakly stratified when warmed during the summer.

The Cigar Lake mine is located within the MacKenzie River basin. A dendritic drainage pattern has developed in the region, with local streamflow patterns controlled by surficial features, such as drumlins and eskers (Cameco 2004). Lakes and muskeg areas are numerous and comprise as much as 35% to 40% of the surface area of the region. Russel Lake, Close Lake, Waterbury Lake, Hatchet Lake, and Wollaston Lake are the major lakes in the region. Except for Wollaston Lake, these lakes ultimately discharge to the Fond-du-Lac River, which flows to the Beaufort Sea via Lake Athabasca, the Slave River, Great Slave Lake, and the MacKenzie River (Cameco 2004). The majority of Wollaston Lake discharge drains to the Cochrane River, which is within the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin.

The main rivers flowing into Waterbury Lake include the Thin River and the Whitford River. Waterbury Lake has a volume of 2.4 billion m3 and discharges at a mean annual rate of 15.1 cubic metres per second (m3/s) (Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd. [TAEM] 1991). Summaries of the physical characteristics and hydrological information for Aline Lake, Aline Creek (outlet of Aline Lake), Seru Bay and Waterbury Lake are provided in Table 3-1.



Table 3-1 Physical Characteristics and Hydrological Information for Area Water Bodies

Aline Lake Cigar Lake Seru Bay Longyear Bay

Exposure Reference Exposure Reference Waterbury Lake Surface area (km2) 0.23 0.28 2.6 2.6 163.5 Mean Depth (m) 1 2.5 8.2 6.6 14.7 Volume (m3) 2.3 x 105 7.0 x 105 2.1 x 107 1.7 x 107 2.4 x 109

Drainage Area (km2) 12.3 2.02 15 6 2,236 Mean annual discharge at outlet (m3/s) 0.0712 b 0.0261 a 0.0983 0.0433 c 15.1 Flushing rate (lake volume per year) 8.32 b 1.11 0.143 c 0.073 c 0.2

Source: Cigar Lake Project Environmental Assessment Study Report, January 2004 (Cameco 2004)

Based on a mean runoff coefficient of 0.0127 m /s/km

Based on a mean runoff coefficient of 0.00508 m /s/km , excluding contribution from the mine water treatment plant

Based on a mean runoff coefficient of 0.0065 m /s/km , assuming no exchange flow with the rest of Waterbury Lake

a 3 2

b 3 2

c 3 2

The hydrologic “pathway” that can be influenced by the discharge of treated effluent leads from the muskeg area to Aline Lake and ultimately Seru Bay of Waterbury Lake. The muskeg comprises a wet area that is located southeast of the mine site. The muskeg flows into Aline Lake that is less than 1 m deep and discharges to Aline Creek that empties into Seru Bay (Cameco 2004).

3.4 Aquatic Resources

The Aline Lake drainage system is the current receiving environment for treated effluent discharge from the Cigar Lake mine (Figure 2-2). Treated effluent is released to the environment only when analysis confirms that licensed effluent release criteria has been met. The treated effluent is discharged to a muskeg area that subsequently flows into Aline Lake. From Aline Lake, the effluent discharges via Aline Creek to Seru Bay of Waterbury Lake.

In the fall of 2007, Cameco completed a comprehensive aquatic environmental monitoring program for the Cigar Lake mine. The environmental monitoring was comprised of two main programs: the Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program to meet Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) requirements and the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) to meet SMOE requirements.

3.4.1 Water Quality

Typical of shield lakes, surface waters in the region are neutral to slightly acidic and have poor buffering capacity (Cameco 2004). Nutrient levels are generally low, and trace constituents and radionuclides are also found in low concentrations.

Based on the results from the 2007 monitoring program, water quality sampling of the Cigar Lake Project study area identified low levels of metals (with the exception of iron in Aline Lake), trace elements, and radionuclides in both reference and exposure areas. However, levels of inorganic ions were elevated in Aline Lake as compared to the other



study areas. This is likely the result of treated effluent release from the Cigar Lake Project, which contains elevated levels of inorganic ions (Canadian North Environment Services [CanNorth] 2008). Dissolved oxygen levels remained sufficiently high throughout the 2006/2007 winter to support the fish population in Aline Lake. Thus, the reduced flows into Aline Lake as a result of shutdown of the mine dewatering pumps due to the Cigar Lake mine inflow event are unlikely to confound the results of the fish population survey (CanNorth 2008).

3.4.2 Sediment Quality

A sediment quality database is available for surficial sediments in Longyear Bay, Seru Bay (two sites; Seru Bay Centre and near the mouth of Aline Creek), Aline Lake, and the Muskeg Areas impounded by the Muskeg Dyke, which is the direct receiver of treated effluent discharge from the water treatment plant. These data were initially collected as part of the Cigar Lake environmental monitoring program for the period beginning in 1985. Baseline sediment quality conditions in the Cigar Lake area were summarized based on monitoring programs in 1983 and 1986 covering Aline Lake, Seru Bay, and Longyear Bay. These data indicated that trace element and radionuclide concentrations in sediments of the Cigar Lake study area were similar to those for the larger regional sediment quality database (Cameco 2004).

Based on the results from the 2007 monitoring program, the majority of the COPCs measured in the sediment of Aline Lake and Seru Bay were low and/or within the range of concentrations measured during previous monitoring years (CanNorth 2008). A few notable differences were concentrations of molybdenum and radium-226 in Aline Lake and radium-226 concentrations in Seru Bay, which were higher than the mean concentration measured in the reference area in 2007 (CanNorth 2008). In addition, mean copper concentrations in Seru Bay have increased during each consecutive monitoring year. While the above differences were noted in the exposure areas, mean concentrations remained below the available guidelines at all the sampling areas (CanNorth 2008).

In the Muskeg area samples, all of the COPCs showed a considerable decrease from mean levels measured in 2004. The 2007 concentrations were similar to mean concentrations measured during the 1998 and 2001 sampling periods and below available guidelines (CanNorth 2008). The elevated mean concentrations of COPCs measured in 2004 is the result of one of the three 2004 replicate samples containing high levels of the COPCs (CanNorth 2008). The other two replicate samples contained concentrations of COPCs similar to values measured during the 1998 and 2001 sampling periods.

3.4.3 Benthic Invertebrates

A series of baseline benthic invertebrate surveys were carried out in the Cigar Lake area, some prior to the test mining period (1983, 1986, and 1987), and some during, or after the completion of test mining under conditions of intermittent treated mine water discharge to Aline Lake (1990, and 1993). Although there were differences in survey methods (e.g., collection methods, mesh size, level of taxonomic resolution), which do



not permit useful comparison of the data, overall the data provides a general understanding of the status of resident benthic invertebrate communities (Cameco 2004). Sample collection sites have included Aline Lake, Aline Creek, the Thin River, and various locations in Waterbury Lake (IEC Beak Environmental Consultants Ltd. [IEC BEAK] 1985; CLMC 1987; and TAEM 1991, 1993).

Benthic invertebrate community composition throughout the study area reflects the high-quality coldwater environment, typical of undisturbed rivers and lakes of the Canadian Shield, with differences in species composition and density reflective of differences in habitat type (TAEM 1993). Cigar Lake area benthic invertebrate communities are similar to those in the region, with the exception of the apparent scarcity or absence of amphipods that likely reflects the lack of appropriate habitat (Cameco 2004). A similar absence of amphipods occurs upstream in the Whitford River basin near the McArthur River Project (Cameco 2004).

The results from the 2007 monitoring program differ from the initial EEM survey completed in 2004 in which no significant differences were found in the above effect endpoints between Aline Lake and Lake B (CanNorth 2005). Temporal comparison between the 2004 and 2007 EEM sampling periods suggests that density has decreased significantly in the reference areas since 2004 but not in Aline Lake. For example,the density of benthic invertebrates in both the Lake B and Mad Dog Lake reference areas was significantly lower than the density measured in the Aline Lake exposure area (CanNorth 2008). In addition, benthic invertebrate density was significantly lower in the Mad Dog Lake reference area as compared to the Lake B reference area (CanNorth 2008).

As previously mentioned, Cameco completed a comprehensive aquatic environmental monitoring program for the Cigar Lake mine in the fall of 2007, to meet EC MMER and SMOE regulatory requirements. The primary objective of the fish monitoring program is to identify potential influences of treated effluent discharge on fish tissue concentrations and sentinel species population characteristics in the Cigar Lake Project area. This objective was achieved by the implementation of a fish chemistry monitoring program and a fish population monitoring program (CanNorth 2008), as discussed below.

3.4.4 Fish Chemistry

The 2007 fish chemistry monitoring program indicates that the majority of COPCs are within the range of concentrations measured during past monitoring years (CanNorth 2008). Slight decreases in selenium since 2004 are apparent in both the northern pike and white sucker flesh and bone chemistry data. Nickel concentrations in northern pike flesh and copper in northern pike and white sucker flesh were also measured at slightly lower concentrations in 2007 (CanNorth 2008). The 2007 mean arsenic concentrations were similar to concentrations measured in 1998 and 2001, and lower than mean concentrations measured in 2004 (CanNorth 2008).



3.4.5 Fish Populations

A total of 19 species of fish are known to occur in the RSA, with the larger lakes supporting the greatest number of species (CLMC 1995b). Hatchet Lake supports the greatest diversity (18 species). Other lakes in the RSA that are known to support ten or more species include Waterbury Lake, Russel Lake, and Cree Lake (Cameco 2004). Numerous lakes and streams in the region have been reported to support eight or nine species of fish.

Fish community composition in the Cigar Lake mine area is typical of the region, and population densities are, on average, in the upper range for the region (Cameco 2004). Waterbury Lake supports the most diverse fish community (13 species), followed by Sawatzky Lake (5 species) (CLMC 1995b). Densities of fish in Aline Lake, Bizarre Lake, and Cigar Lake were low relative to a regional average (Cameco 2004).

The 2007 monitoring program showed that northern pike and slimy sculpin surveys produce differing results (CanNorth 2008). The northern pike survey suggests lower energy use by fish in the exposure area, while the slimy sculpin survey suggests higher energy use and energy storage in the exposure area.

3.4.6 Fish Habitat

Generally, littoral habitat in lakes is quite varied with sand being the most common substrate (Cameco 2004). Some cobble and boulder shorelines occur and aquatic macrophyte densities are generally low, especially along exposed shorelines. Larger streams in the region generally support a wide range of habitat with sand substrates occurring in slower flowing reaches and gravel, cobble and boulder substrates in the faster flowing riffle areas (Cameco 2004). There is relatively dense macrophyte growth along the banks. The diversity of habitats in many lakes and streams usually increases the availability of suitable spawning and rearing areas for native fish species.

Spawning investigations were completed in 1990 in aquatic ecosystems near the Cigar Lake mine (TAEM 1991). Habitat most suitable for northern pike was found at the northeastern portion and southern tip of Seru Bay (Cameco 2004). In Aline Lake, northern pike is the only species with suitable spawning habitat, most commonly found along the northeastern and northwestern shores. Aline Creek provides the most suitable habitat for this species, with the central reaches of the creek being the most suitable. Beaver dams along Aline Creek appear to restrict the movement of fish along Aline Creek (Cameco 2004).

Suitable Lake trout spawning habitat in Seru Bay is very limited (<5% by area) and is located at the northeast portion, with moderately suitable habitat found scattered along the southern shore of the bay (Cameco 2004). The limited habitat areas in Seru Bay are likely to be an insignificant fraction of the available habitat in Waterbury Lake overall (Cameco 2004).

Seru Bay and Longyear Bay are the two water bodies in which suitable habitat for lake whitefish occurs. The extreme northern portion of Seru Bay was found to provide the best habitat for this species (Cameco 2004). Seru Bay, Longyear Bay, and Cigar Lake



have been found to provide suitable habitat for white sucker and longnose sucker, both species preferring shallow, gravelly stream sections or gravel and cobble areas of lakes (TAEM 1989). Seru Bay offers moderate habitat suitability for both species at its northern extreme and at one location at the very southwestern tip. The best habitat in Cigar Lake is rated only as moderate, and is found at the very northern tip of the lake (Cameco 2004).

3.5 Terrestrial Resources

3.5.1 Soils and Terrain

Glacial till is the dominant surficial deposit at the Cigar Lake mine and is the primary constituent of the ground moraine and drumlin landforms that characterize the region. Soils in the area are dominantly brunisolic in well-drained sites with poorer drained areas dominated by podzolic soils (Cameco 2004). The region is characterized by drumlins and gravel moraine. Moraine deposits range in thickness up to 20 m near lakes and up to 80 m in drumlins. Sandstone is the primary parent material of glacial deposits, which consist of a very sandy glacial till with a high component of cobbles and boulders (approximately 85% sand, 15% silt and clay) (Cameco 2004). Eskers, kames, and outwash plains also occur throughout the region.

The thermal regime at the Cigar Lake mine suggests that continuous permafrost cannot and does not exist (Cameco 2004). Mean ground temperatures measured near the test shaft are 4.4°C at depths of between 13.9 and 33.9 m. However, the mean annual temperature at the Cigar Lake mine is low enough to permit sporadic pockets of permafrost to exist in isolated areas such as bogs or north-facing slopes (CLMC 1995a).

3.5.2 Vegetation

The Cigar Lake mine is within the Athabasca South Ecodistrict of the Boreal Forest Region (Rowe 1972). Coniferous forests characterized by semi-open jack pine forest dominate upland areas of this ecodistrict. Open black spruce and tamarack bogs dominate in the lowlands. Fire is the most common vegetation modifier, and results in large areas of naturally regenerating burns. A total of 653 plant species (410 vascular plants, 115 bryophytes, and 128 lichens) are documented in the ecodistrict (Cameco 2004).

The Cigar Lake area has a history of fires and is dominated by jack pine communities. Fires have not occurred at the site since 1977, although much of the surrounding area was burned over in 1984 and 1985 (Cameco 2004). This has resulted in an area that is presently dominated by young jack pine forests within a mosaic of wetland spruce, bogs or fens, and occasional areas of more mature trees undamaged during the more recent fires. Patches of deciduous tree, primarily birch, are found along water courses.

As a result of the fire history, plant diversity is low. Field studies reported 95 species of flora (73 vascular plants, 19 bryophytes, and 19 lichens) from 43 families (IEC BEAK 1985). Total flora reported for all studies from the Wollaston Lake area included 260 vascular plants, 74 bryophytes, and 88 lichens (Saskatchewan Research Council [SRC]



1983). No rare or endangered plant species were identified on the Cigar Lake Project site during the initial baseline surveys (Cameco 2004), however, rare plants are know to occur around Aline Creek, at the inlet into Seru Bay.

3.5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The regional baseline studies for the Cigar Lake mine identified 222 bird species, 45 mammal species, 4 amphibian species, and 1 reptile species as potentially resident or seasonally resident in the Athabasca South Ecodistrict (CLMC 1995b). No endangered or threatened species are known to be resident or frequent visitors to Cigar Lake, although peregrine falcon subspecies Falco peregrinus anatum, the piping plover, and the whooping crane, which are endangered, do overlap the region (Cameco 2004). Woodland caribou and great grey owls are present in the region and are listed as vulnerable by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Other potential visitors listed as vulnerable include the Caspian tern and Cooper’s Hawk.

Wildlife surveys were carried out in 1983 and 1984 (IEC BEAK 1985). Wildlife observed in the area was representative of wildlife in the region. In total, 12 species of mammals and 39 species of birds were observed in the area during these surveys (IEC BEAK 1985). No rare or endangered species were observed during the surveys (Cameco 2004).

Resident avian diversity and population levels are relatively low compared to other areas of the province (Cameco 2004). In addition, relatively few occurrences of colonial nesting birds (e.g., gulls and terns) have been reported. No major waterfowl staging or moulting areas have been reported in local studies (Cameco 2004). Of the 16 species of raptors (i.e., hawks, eagles, and owls) known to occur in northern Saskatchewan, bald eagles and ospreys are the most common to the Cigar Lake area. All raptors appear to exist in low densities in the LSA, and bald eagle nest densities have been estimated to be approximately one active nest per 100 km2 within the Cigar Lake area (Cameco 2004).

Of the 15 furbearing animals potentially residing in the region, 11 are terrestrial – red fox, arctic fox, lynx, coyote, wolf, black bear, wolverine, marten, fisher, weasel, and red squirrel; and four are aquatic – beaver, muskrat, mink, and river otter. Of these, fisher, lynx, marten, mink, otter, fox, muskrat, red squirrel, wolf, and black bear are important to trappers in the area (Cameco 2004).

The predominant species of ungulates inhabiting the region are moose and woodland caribou. Barren-ground caribou also make occasional migrations into the northern portions of the region during the winter. Woodland caribou are permanent, non-migratory residents of the region. Limited data exist for this region regarding woodland caribou densities, although observations in the region suggest that densities are probably typical of woodland caribou populations across North America (0.03 to 0.04 caribou/km2) (Cameco 2004). Moose are permanent residents throughout the RSA. They occur in low numbers (<0.01 to 0.06 moose/km2), reflecting the limited availability of suitable habitat (Cameco 2004).



Reptile and amphibian distribution in northern Saskatchewan is restricted by the local continental climate and short ice-free period available for the development of the young (Cameco 2004). The region represents the northern limit for most Saskatchewan reptile and amphibian species. Little information exists on the distribution of amphibian and reptile populations in the region. Although four species of amphibians and one reptile species potentially inhabit the region, only the boreal chorus frog and the wood frog were observed during surveys (Cameco 2004).

3.6 Resource Uses

3.6.1 Heritage Resources

In the Waterbury Lake area, archaeological field investigations undertaken in 1983 and 1984 uncovered several archaeological items at three different sites. These sites were located near the exploration camp at Waterbury Lake.

3.6.2 Traditional and Non-traditional Land Use

Residents have expressed protection of lands and waters in the Athabasca region as being of importance when considering potential developments. In addition to wage employment, resources harvesting (e.g., trapping, fishing, guiding and hunting) from the lands and water in the region provides important seasonal cash income and income-in-kind for many Athabasca residents. There are two registered traplines in the Cigar Lake area, and both are held by trappers from Wollaston Lake. One registered trapper traps commercially in the Cigar Lake leasehold area, but his activities are generally undertaken away from the mine site.

Independent commercial fishermen and three fishermen’s co-ops operate in the Athabasca region. In addition, sport fishing is an important component of northern Saskatchewan’s tourism industry. Waterbury Lake includes sporadic winter commercial fishing activity by two fishermen from Wollaston Lake (who also hold trapping licenses in the area) and a sport fishing lodge, Waterbury Lodge.

Beyond its economic value, the resource use sector is important to the way of life for Aboriginal residents of the Athabasca region. Many aboriginal Athabasca residents continue to rely on wildlife for sustenance. Barren-ground caribou are of prime cultural and economic significance (Cameco 2004). Water is another important traditional resource for Aboriginal people in the Athabasca region. Historically, water travel was by canoe, and people continue to use the waterways for travel. Traditionally, fish have been an important food source for Aboriginal people in the Athabasca region. Lake whitefish is a preferred fish species because it is easily smoked (Cameco 2004).

Traditional uses of forest plant species are numerous. Fuel wood is often collected to heat local homes throughout the region. Tree and plants have cultural uses including medicinal, ceremonial, and spiritual.



3.6.3 Socio-economic Environment

The Cigar Lake mine is currently operated with the intent of maximizing employment and business participation of residents of northern Saskatchewan. The framework for this commitment is set out in the 1999 Impact Management Agreement (IMA) signed by AREVA, CLMC, and Cameco, along with six of seven communities in the Athabasca regions. Commitments towards the direct employment and economic benefits for Residents of Saskatchewan’s North (RSN) are also reiterated in the Surface Lease Agreement signed between the Government of Saskatchewan and Cameco (2004).


POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 4 – Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures

4.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 Assessment Methods

The following section describes the methods used to assess the potential residual effects of the Project on the physical, biological, cultural, and socio-economic components of the existing environment.

4.1.1 Effects Classification

Anticipated residual effects can be defined using a number of criteria including, direction, magnitude, geographic extent, duration, reversibility, frequency, and likelihood.

4.1.1.1 Definitions of Effects Criteria

The following provides a generic definition for each of the effects criteria.

• Direction: indicates whether the effect on the environment will be negative (i.e., less favourable), positive (i.e., beneficial), or neutral (i.e., no change).

• Magnitude: is a measure of the degree of change that will occur, and is classified into four scales: low, moderate, and high. Magnitude can relate to a percentage change (e.g., change from baseline), or to absolute changes that are above or below guidelines or thresholds.

o Low: the effect is predicted to be within range of natural variation or baseline values; and is less than reference criteria or guidance values.

o Moderate: the effect is predicted to be at or slightly exceeding the limits of baseline values, reference criteria, or guideline values.

o High: the effect is predicted to be beyond the upper or lower limit of natural variation or baseline values, reference criteria, or guideline values so that there is likely a change of state from baseline conditions.

• Geographic Extent: refers to the area affected, and is categorized into three scales:

o Site-specific: small-scaled direct effects from the Project limited to the site study area (i.e., Project footprint)

o Local: direct and small-scale indirect effects and limited to the LSA;

o Regional: cumulative local and regional effects from the Project and other developments with the RSA.

• Duration: the length of time the effect occurs, and whether the effect is reversible once the event had been completed. Both the duration of individual events (e.g., waste water discharges) and the overall time frame during which the effect may occur (e.g., phases of the Project including construction,



List of Tables

Table 3-1 Physical Characteristics and Hydrological Information for Area Water Bodies.................................................................................................................................. 3-3

List of Tables (con’t)

Following Report Table 2-2 Schedule for the Cigar Lake Operation Water Inflow Management Project Table 4-1 Project-Environment Interaction Matrix Table 4-3 Determination of Signifance for Residual Effects Resulting from the Project Table 4-4 Summary of Potential Residual Effects from the Project

List of Figures Following Report

Figure 1-1: Location of the Cigar Lake Mine Site Figure 2-1: Integrated Management Organization Chart for the Cigar Lake Operation Figure 2-2: Proposed Concept for Routine and Non-Routine Water Discharge to Seru

Bay Figure 2-3: Schematic Diagram of Existing and Proposed Water Treatment and Release

Circuits Figure 2-4: Location of Existing Pipeline and Water Discharge Course to Aline Lake and

Seru Bay Figure 2-5: Aline Lake Figure 2-6: Aline Creek Figure 2-7: Cross-section of a Typical Pipe Bench and Access Road Design Figure 2-8: Vegetation Along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor Adjacent to the Existing

Access Road

Cameco Corporation iii


operation, and closure) are considered. In addition, the length of time the effect will last must be considered.

o Short-term: the effect is reversible at the end of one year (i.e., confined to the construction phase);

o Medium-term: the effect is reversible at the end of the assumed operation period, with full recovery extending into the near-term decommissioning period (i.e., tens of years); and

o Long-term: the effect is reversible well beyond the assumed decommissioning period (i.e., thousands of years).

• Reversibility: the reversibility of any effects must be considered not only in terms of whether the effect is reversible at all but also in terms of how much time will be required for the affected environmental component to recover. This term usually has only one alternative: reversible or irreversible.

o Reversible: effect will not result in a permanent change of state of the population compared to “similar” environments not influenced by the Project.

o Irreversible: effect is not reversible (i.e., duration of effect is unknown or permanent).

• Frequency: the frequency of effects and events causing effects must be considered, as well as the length of time between occurrences. Frequency is expressed as:

o Infrequent: confined to a discrete period or phase of the Project; o Frequent: occurs intermittently, but repeatedly over the lifespan of

the Project; or o Continuous: occurs continuously over the lifespan of the Project.

• Likelihood: is the probability of an effect occurring and is described in parallel with uncertainty. Four categories are used:

o Unlikely: effect is likely to occur less than once in 100 years; o Possible: effect will occur at least once in 100 years; o Likely: effect will likely occur at least once in 10 years; and o Highly likely: effect has 100 percent [%] chance of occurring

within a year. • Ecological Context: takes into consideration the value (e.g., cultural, social,

traditional and non-traditional use, species status) of the environmental component being affected, and is defined by the following categories:

o Low Value: the environmental component being affected is common and abundant in the RSA, has limited traditional and non-traditional value, or may be detectable at the individual level, but not detectable at the population level;

o Moderate Value: the environmental component being affected is less common and of limited abundance within the RSA, is of



moderate traditional and non-traditional value, or is likely to be detectable at the population level, but is expected to be reversible;

o High Value: the environmental component being affected is listed as rare or endangered, is of high traditional and non-traditional value, or is detectable at the population level, and is likely to be irreversible.

4.1.2 Significance

Significance is used to identify projected residual effects that are of sufficient magnitude, duration, and/or geographic extent that they could lead to fundamental changes to the highly valued components. Based on this definition, environmental significance was identified as follows:

• Projected effects that are detectable at the population level, and are likely to be irreversible were considered significant. Projected effects of high ecological context were considered significant if they involved a high magnitude of change in the regional assessment boundary that was irreversible.

• Projected impacts that may be detectable at the individual or population level, but the impact is likely to be reversible at the population level were considered not significant.

4.2 Potential Environmental Effects from the Project and Proposed Mitigation

The following sections briefly outline potential effects of the proposed Project. The EIS will expand on the information presented here as well as introduce additional issues, which may be uncovered through public consultation. The anticipated Project-environment interactions are outlined in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the potential residual effects and mitigation for the Project-environment interactions identified in Table 4-1. The potential effects, mitigations, and residual effects are described in greater detail below, on an environmental component basis. Contingency plans and monitoring programs, as required, are also described.

4.2.1 Atmospheric Environment

4.2.1.1 Air Quality

Air emissions are expected to include dust, as well as emissions from diesel-operated equipment during construction activities. Equipment will adhere to federal emission standards, and environmentally acceptable dust suppressants and/or water will be used to control dust as required. As such, residual effects from air emissions are not anticipated.



4.2.1.2 Noise Quality

Although noise is anticipated to be continuous during construction, heavy equipment will be outfitted with mufflers to dampen noise pollution. Most of the construction for the Project will occur adjacent to or within existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor), which currently generate noise on a continual basis. Furthermore, the LSA is located in a remote setting, with no nearby residences; therefore, effects of noise on humans are not expected. However, the Project will likely generate noise above ambient background levels, which may influence wildlife inhibiting or traveling through the Project area.

4.2.2 Surface Water

4.2.2.1 Water Quality

The discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows has the potential to effect water quality in Seru Bay. In 2007, Cameco completed a comprehensive aquatic environmental monitoring program to meet EC’s MMER and the SMOE’s regulatory requirements. Based on the 2007 aquatic environmental monitoring results metals, trace elements, and radionuclides measured in Aline Lake were generally below Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines (with the exception of iron), and were comparable to concentrations measured in reference areas (CanNorth 2008). The 2007 iron concentrations measured in Aline Lake were elevated above the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) level of 0.3 mg/L (CCME 2007), however, concentrations remain similar to those measured in 2004 (CanNorth 2005) and within the range of concentrations measured between 1983 and 1986, before the release of treated effluent began in 1988 (CLMC 1995). Levels of inorganic ions (i.e., calcium, chloride, sodium, potassium, and sulphate) were also elevated in Aline Lake, as compared to the other study areas. Environmental effects monitoring will also continue for the proposed Project.

There is also potential for surface water contamination from spills (e.g., petroleum products, chemicals) during construction of the Project. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program in place at the Cigar Lake site will be applicable to the Project. For example, no chemicals, fluids, or privies will be stored, located, or transferred within 90 m of Seru Bay and spill response equipment will be readily available. In the event of a spill, mitigation will be implemented using spill containment techniques, and subsequently no residual effects from spills are anticipated.

4.2.2.2 Sediment Quality

Similar to water quality, the discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows has the potential to effect sediment quality in Seru Bay. In 2007, Cameco completed a comprehensive aquatic environmental monitoring program to meet EC’s MMER and the SMOE’s regulatory requirements. Based on the results from the 2007 monitoring program, the majority of the COPCs measured



in the sediment of Aline Lake and Seru Bay were low and/or within the range of concentrations measured during previous monitoring years, with the exception of molybdenum and radium-226 concentrations in Aline Lake, and radium-226 concentrations in Seru Bay (CanNorth 2008). In addition, mean copper concentrations in Seru Bay appear to have increased during each consecutive monitoring year, with concentrations measured in 2007 more than two times higher than concentrations measured in 1996. While the above differences were noted in the exposure areas, mean concentrations remained below the available guidelines at all the sampling areas (CanNorth 2008). Environmental effects monitoring will also continue for the proposed Project.

There is potential for sediment contamination from spills (e.g., petroleum products, chemicals) during construction of the Project. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program in place at the Cigar Lake site will be applicable to the Project. For example, no chemicals, fluids, or privies will be stored, located, or transferred within 90 m of Seru Bay and spill response equipment will be readily available. In the event of a spill, mitigation will be implemented using spill containment techniques, and subsequently potential residual effects from spills are not anticipated.

4.2.3 Aquatic Biology

Construction activities on-site also have the potential to affect the aquatic environment, both directly through construction carried out in or on the water, and indirectly through erosion and runoff from land-based construction. Construction activities will be completed outside of the spring spawning period, therefore, potential effects to fish habitat are not anticipated. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., erosion and sediment control structures) will be implemented to further reduce the potential effects to fish habitat during construction activities.

Changes in water and sediment quality from the discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows have the potential to effect aquatic VECs, as well as fish habitat quality in Seru Bay. A review of the potential for effects to aquatic VECs and fish habitat quality will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment.

There is potential for fish habitat contamination from spills (e.g., petroleum products, chemicals) during construction of the Project. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program in place at the Cigar Lake site will be applicable to the Project. For example, no chemicals, fluids, or privies will be stored, located, or transferred within 90 m of Seru Bay and spill response equipment will be readily available. In the event of a spill, mitigation will be implemented using spill containment techniques, and subsequently potential residual effects to fish and fish habitat from spills are not anticipated.



4.2.4 Terrestrial Environment

4.2.4.1 Soils and Terrain

Three potential issues exist concerning construction and operation of the Project on soils:

• disturbance of soil profile; • erosion of exposed soil; and • soil contamination from spills.

Soils in the Project footprint will be disturbed during construction of the Project components. This disturbance can result in decreased soil fertility, nutrient loss, and compaction. Minimizing the footprint and salvaging the topsoil for use as reclamation material during decommissioning can mitigate these effects. Two options are under consideration for the new pipeline routing. In both instances, clearing requirements will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). By using existing disturbed areas, where possible, combined with site restoration and reclamation it is expected that residual effects to soils will not occur.

Soil erosion can occur during construction on exposed mineral soil, and can be an issue along new road construction before vegetation can establish in the right-of-way. Road ditches and other areas of exposed soil will be re-vegetated as soon as possible, and erosion and sediment control structures will be in place, when working near water bodies. As such, no residual effects to soils from erosion are anticipated.

There is potential for soil contamination from spills (e.g., petroleum products, chemicals) during construction of the Project. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Program in place at the Cigar Lake site will be applicable to the Project. In the event of a spill, mitigation will be implemented using spill containment techniques, and subsequently no residual effects from spills are anticipated.

4.2.5 Vegetation

Two options are under consideration for the new pipeline routing. In both instances, clearing requirements will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). Although existing cleared areas will be used where possible, it is anticipated areas adjacent to existing roads may require some additional clearing. In addition, it is estimated that vegetation within a 200 m long pipeline corridor from the existing road to Seru Bay, will need to be cleared. The pipeline corridor will be approximately 12 to 15 m in width in order to accommodate a supporting bench and access pathway for servicing and inspection.



Prior to clearing, SMOE will be contacted to obtain a Forest Product permit and inquiries will be made as to whether merchantable timber requires salvage. Although rare plants are know to occur around Aline Creek, at the inlet into Seru Bay, it is anticipated that construction activities for the Project would avoid disturbance to this area. However, a detailed investigation for rare plants, as well as heritage resources would be completed along the proposed pipeline corridor, prior to construction.

4.2.5.1 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The Project area supports a variety of wildlife species, and a number of individuals from populations may potentially be disturbed or affected by activities associated with the construction of the Project. These include change in movement and behaviour from sensory effects (e.g., noise, smell, lights, human presence), and habitat loss and fragmentation.

Site infrastructure and increased noise associated with the Project has the potential to effect wildlife species. However, altered movement and behaviour of wildlife is expected to be low as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). Although, sensory effects from the Project are temporary and generally associated with the construction phase of the Project, wildlife avoidance of these areas is likely to occur throughout operation of the Project.

Much of the effect of site development to wildlife, in terms of habitat disturbance, has already occurred as a result of clearing and construction for the test mine, and mine complex. Habitat loss will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). Although additional habitat disturbance will occur as a result of the Project, habitat loss and fragmentation is anticipated to have a low effect on wildlife inhabiting the Project area. This is due to the small size of the Project footprint and habitats within the footprint are not unique. Individuals should be able to temporarily move to other areas of their home range without being restricted by habitat loss. Based on previous assessments, no rare or endangered wildlife species were observed in the Project area.

Although effects to wildlife health resulting from the Project are anticipated to be within the envelope previously assessed in the 2004 EASR, a review of the potential for effects to wildlife VECs will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment.

4.2.6 Human Health

During construction of the Project, health of workers can be affected by conventional safety hazards. These hazards are associated with the installation, operation and maintenance of such things as heavy mobile equipment, chemicals, exhaust and other emissions. Conventional safety and health risks may be



classified as chemical, physical, ergonomic, or biological. Cameco will maintain or enhance the current Health and Safety Management Program throughout the construction and operation of the proposed Project. This program has been designed to meet both provincial and federal requirements with respect to the prevention of injuries and illnesses among Cameco employees and contractors, and to be in conformance with Best Management Practices.

Although effects to human health resulting from the Project are anticipated to be within the envelope previously assessed in the 2004 EASR, a review of the potential for effects to humans will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment. .

4.2.7 Aboriginal Interest

Within the site study area, the proposed Project will be largely confined to areas currently disturbed by the Cigar Lake Project. On Waterbury Lake, seasonal and periodic use of fish resources is expected to remain as they have in the past. There is one registered commercial trapper in the leasehold area, however, the traplines are located away from the mine site. Therefore, effects to land and resource use from the Project are not anticipated. Any perception of effects on fish species or water quality from Waterbury Lake will be assessed through a monitoring and follow-up program.

It is anticipated that the Project will not have a residual effect on the socio-economic environment within the RSA. Construction activities are not likely to increase employment opportunities, as it is expected that only a few individuals will be required for a limited period of time.

4.2.8 Land and Resource Use

Within the site study area, the proposed Project will be largely confined to areas currently disturbed by the Cigar Lake Project. One registered trapper traps commercially in the leasehold area, but these activities are generally undertaken away from the mine site. On Waterbury Lake, no effect to domestic use of fish species is anticipated; seasonal and periodic use of fish resources are expected to remain as they have in the past. Therefore, effects to land and resource use from the Project are not anticipated.

4.2.9 Physical and Cultural Heritage

Land disturbance will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). A detailed heritage resources assessment will be completed prior to construction of the Project, therefore, no effects on heritage resources are anticipated.

The Project is not predicted to have a residual effect on aesthetics within the LSA. Disturbance will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or



adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). Therefore, mitigation includes using existing roads, and applying site restoration and reclamation to disturbed areas at decommissioning.

4.3 Classification of Residual Effects and Determination of Significance

Classification of the residual effects from the proposed Project identified in Table 4-2.

4.3.1 Surface Water

4.3.1.1 Water Quality

Based on the 2007 aquatic environmental monitoring program, metals, trace elements, and radionuclides measured in Aline Lake were generally below CCME guidelines, and were comparable to concentrations measured in reference areas (CanNorth 2008). As such, residual effects to water quality, resulting from the Project, are anticipated to be moderate in magnitude, local in geographic extent, and continuous over the life of the operation. Potential residual effects to water quality are anticipated to be reversible in the medium-term, and are of moderate ecological context. Overall, the adverse residual effect of the Project on water quality is predicted to be not significant.

4.3.1.2 Sediment Quality

Based on the results from the 2007 monitoring program, the majority of the COPCs measured in the sediment of Aline Lake and Seru Bay were low and/or within the range of concentrations measured during previous monitoring years (CanNorth 2008). While differences were noted in the exposure areas, mean concentrations remained below the available guidelines at all the sampling areas (CanNorth 2008). Therefore, residual effects to sediment quality, resulting from the Project, are anticipated to be moderate in magnitude, local in geographic extent, and continuous over the life of the operation. Potential residual effects to sediment quality are anticipated to be reversible in the medium-term, and are of moderate ecological context. Therefore, the adverse residual effect of the Project on sediment quality is predicted to be not significant.

4.3.2 Aquatic Biology

Changes in water and sediment quality from the discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows have the potential to effect fish habitat quality in Seru Bay. Based on results from the 2007 aquatic environmental monitoring program, potential residual effects to fish habitat quality (from changes in water and sediment quality) are anticipated to be reversible in the medium-term. Potential changes to fish habitat quality are anticipated to be low in magnitude and of moderate ecological context. As such, the adverse residual effect of the Project on fish habitat quality (from changes in water and sediment quality) is predicted to be not significant.



Changes in water and sediment quality from the discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows have the potential to affect aquatic VECs in Seru Bay. A review of the potential for effects to aquatic VECs and fish habitat quality will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment. However, based on the results of the 2004 EASR, it is anticipated that effects to aquatic VECs will be moderate in magnitude, local in geographic extent, and reversible in the medium-term. Overall, the adverse residual effect of the Project aquatic VECs (from changes in water and sediment quality) is predicted to be not significant.

4.3.3 Terrestrial Environment

4.3.3.1 Vegetation

Existing cleared areas will be used where possible, however, areas adjacent to existing roads may require some additional clearing. In addition, it is estimated that vegetation within a 200 m long pipeline corridor, 12 to 15 m wide, from the existing road to Seru Bay, will also be cleared. Overall, the direct effects to vegetation communities from the construction of the Project are predicted to be of low magnitude, and medium-term duration (revegetation should occur after decommissioning). The geographic extent of effects to vegetation will be limited to the LSA (i.e., local). Salvaging and replacement of topsoil, combined with proactive mitigation and reclamation efforts should limit the time required for disturbed areas to approach a natural forest community type. Thus, the ecological context is anticipated to be low, and the adverse residual effect of the Project on vegetation communities is predicted to be not significant.

4.3.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The Project area supports a variety of wildlife species, and a number of individuals from populations may potentially be disturbed or affected by activities associated with the construction of the Project. Site infrastructure and noise associated with the Project has the potential to alter movement and behaviour of wildlife. The use of mufflers, employing best work practices, and confining activities to designated areas should partially mitigate these residual effects. Sensory disturbance to wildlife is expected to be low in magnitude as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). The residual effects will extend into the LSA (i.e., local), and will be reversed once the Project is decommissioned (i.e., medium-term in duration).

Much of the effect of site development to wildlife, in terms of habitat disturbance, has already occurred as a result of clearing and construction for the test mine, and mine complex. Habitat disturbance will be limited as most of the Project footprint occurs within or adjacent to existing disturbances (i.e., Cigar Lake mine site, road corridor). In addition, habitats within the Project footprint are not unique, and individuals should be able to temporarily move to other areas of their home range



without being restricted by habitat loss. Site restoration methods and the reclamation plan for vegetation should also limit the potential medium-term residual effects to habitat loss and fragmentation, and associated changed in movement and behaviour. As such, residual effects from habitat loss and fragmentation are anticipated to be low in magnitude, local in geographic extent, reversible in the medium-term, and of low ecological context. Overall, the adverse residual effect of the Project on wildlife is predicted to be not significant.

Changes in water and sediment quality from the discharge of treated effluent from routine and non-routine inflows have the potential to affect wildlife VECs in the LSA. A review of the potential for effects to wildlife VECs will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment. However, based on the results of the 2004 EASR, it is anticipated that effects to wildlife VECs will be low in magnitude, local in geographic extent, and reversible in the medium-term. Overall, the adverse residual effect of the Project wildlife VECs (from changes in water and sediment quality) is predicted to be not significant.

4.3.4 Human Health

Although effects to human health resulting from the Project are anticipated to be within the envelope previously assessed in the 2004 EASR, a review of the potential for effects to humans will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment. However, based on the results of the 2004 EASR, it is anticipated that effects to human health will be low in magnitude, local in geographic extent, and reversible in the medium-term. Overall, the adverse residual effect of the Project on human health is predicted to be not significant.


PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 5 – Public Consultation

5.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Cameco originally presented the proposed Project to members of the Athabasca Environment Quality Subcommittee (EQC) on July 22, 2008 at the Cigar Lake mine. At the time of the consultation, it was proposed that non-routine inflow be directed to Seru Bay, with routine inflow discharge continuing to Aline Creek. Protection of the Aline Lake drainage system was noted at that time to be important to the EQC and no concerns were raised over the proposed plan for handling non-routine inflows. The increased safety margin for mineworkers, along with the protection of the Aline Lake drainage system, was well received and the main focus of the meeting discussions. Cameco agreed with a request by the EQC members to keep them informed of Project development. The project in its current form (e.g. discharge of both routine and non-routine inflows directly to Seru Bay) was further discussed with the full Northern Saskatchewan EQC at a regular meeting in La Ronge Saskatchewan on December 9, 2008. Although a number of questions of clarification regarding system design were asked (i.e. the amount of contingency pipeline capacity, pumping capacity, heat tracing) no further concerns in regard to the Project were expressed.


CONCLUSIONS

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 6 – Conclusion

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Project may result in residual effects to a few physical and biological environmental components over the course of the Project (Table 4-4). For components such as vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat, construction and operation activities will generate continuous effects that may extend into LSA. Sensory effects to wildlife will cease at the end of decommissioning, however, effects on vegetation and wildlife habitat will require more time to reach pre-disturbance conditions (i.e., medium term duration). On-going mitigation and site reclamation are anticipated to accelerate natural regeneration processes and reduce the time required for disturbed areas to reach baseline conditions. Similarly, changes to surface water and sediment quality, and subsequent effects to fish habitat quality, will be reversible in the medium-term, however, effects are anticipated to extend into the LSA.

Overall, the potential residual effects (after mitigation) to the existing environmental components are anticipated to be of low environmental consequence. Mitigation measures include identifying potential environmental sensitivities prior to construction, using an existing network of roads as much as possible, implementing responsible construction practices, and completing site restoration and reclamation.

Based on the current information available for the project description, the majority of the potential environmental impacts could be assessed, as outlined above. However, a review will be completed as part of the derived release limit approach used to determine the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment to fully assess the potential effects on aquatic VECs, wildlife VECs, and human health.


REFERENCES

Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 7 – References

7.0 REFERENCES

CEA Agency (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency). 2007. Operational Policy Statement Preparing Project Descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. November 2007.

Cameco. 2004. Cigar Lake Project: Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning Environmental Assessment Study Report. January 2004. Prepared by: Stantec

CanNorth (Canada North Environmental Services). 2005. The Cigar Lake Uranium Project Environmental Effects Monitoring Biological Monitoring Studies 2004 Interpretive Report. Prepared for Cameco Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CanNorth. 2008. Cigar Lake Project: 2007 Comprehensive Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report. May 2008. Prepared for Cameco Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

CCME (Canadian Council of Minister of the Environment). 2007. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.

CLMC (Cigar Lake Mining Corporation). 1987. Cigar Lake Test Mine Environmental Impact Statement. February 1987.

CLMC. 1995a. The Cigar Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement (Main Document). Prepared by: Ecometrix Inc.

CLMC. 1995b. The Cigar Lake Project Environmental Impact Statement: Supporting Document 3 – Regional Environmental Baseline and Access Road.

IEC BEAK (IEC Beak Consultants Ltd). 1985. Cigar Lake Environmental Baseline Study (Waterbury Lake Project, Saskatchewan). Prepared for COGEMA Canada Ltd.

SMOE (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment). 2003. Guidelines for the Preparation of a Project Proposal.

SRC (Saskatchewan Research Council). 1983. Environmental Baseline Data Critique – Wollaston Lake Area. A Report for the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation.

TAEM (Terrestrial and Aquatic Environmental Managers Ltd.). 1989. Fish Spawning Investigations of Seru Bay, Aline Lake, and Aline Creek in Northern Saskatchewan. Report Prepared for the Cigar Lake Mining Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


Cigar Lake Project: Project Description for Water Inflow Management Project Section 7 – References

TAEM. 1991. Fish Habitat Assessment of Seru and Longyear bays of Waterbury Lake, Aline Creek, and Cigar Lake, Saskatchewan. Prepared for Cigar Lake Mining Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

TAEM. 1993. Results of the 1993 Aquatic Macrophyte Mapping and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Programs for the Cigar Lake Uranium Project, Saskatchewan. Report Prepared for the Cigar Lake Mining Corporation, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


TABLES

Table 2-2 Schedule for the Cigar Lake Operation Water Inflow Management Project

2008 2009 2010 2011 Project Step

N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Baseline

Project Proposal

EA Guidelines

Draft EIS

Stakeholder Review

Final EIS submission

Public Review

EA Hearing

Construction Licensing

Physical Construction

Operating Licensing

Total

Table 4-1 Project-Environment Interaction Matrix

Environmental Component

Biophysical Socio-economic

Atmospheric Environment

Ground water Surface Water Aquatic

BiologyTerrestrial

Environment Human Health1 Aboriginal Interest1

Land and Resource

Use1

Physical and

Cultural Heritage1

Possible Effects of

Environment on Project

Project-Specific Physical Works and

Activities

Air

Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al, D

ust)

Noi

se

Gre

enho

use

Gas

em

issi

ons

Gro

undw

ater

Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al/T

herm

al)

Flow

or W

ater

Tab

le E

leva

tion

Wat

er Q

ualit

y (C

hem

ical

/The

rmal

)

Dra

inag

e or

Stre

am/L

ake

Leve

l

Sho

relin

e or

Bas

in A

ltera

tion

Sed

imen

t Qua

lity

Aqu

atic

Bio

ta

Aqu

atic

Hab

itat

Veg

etat

ion

Com

mun

ities

/Spe

cies

Wild

life

Hab

itat

Soi

l Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al/P

hysi

cal)

Rad

iatio

n D

oses

to G

ener

al P

ublic

Rad

iatio

n D

oses

to W

orke

rs

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to P

ublic

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to W

orke

rs

Con

vent

iona

l Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y

Use

of L

ands

for T

radi

tiona

l Pur

pose

s

Use

of R

esou

rces

for T

radi

tiona

l Pur

pose

s

Rec

reat

ion

Nav

igat

ion

Fore

stry

, Hun

ting,

Tra

ppin

g, F

ishi

ng

Arc

haeo

logy

Vie

wsc

ape

Oth

er (e

.g. s

cien

tific

, his

toric

, pal

eaon

togi

cal)

Sei

smic

or V

olca

nic

Act

ivity

Oth

er S

urfa

ce G

eolo

gica

l Pro

cess

es*

Ext

rem

e W

eath

er E

vent

s an

d H

azar

ds**

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Routine Operations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Malfunctions/Accidents ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

OPERATION PHASE

Routine Operations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Malfunctions/Accidents ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

Routine Operations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Malfunctions/Accidents ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

ABANDONMENT PHASE

Routine Operations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Malfunctions/Accidents ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

INTERACTIONS FROM OTHER PROJECTS (PAST, PRESENT, and FORESEEABLE FUTURE) REQUIRING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT2

Historical Cigar Lake effluent release ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Cigar Lake sewage release

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

McArthur River effluent release

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

1 indirect effects resulting from changes to the environment from project effects (consideration of direct effects is discretionary) 2 evaluation looks at residual environmental effects of project in combination with environmental effects of other projects * includes erosion, land/rock/mud slides, avalanches, unstable soils ** includes storms, fl ods, extreme precipitation, wind, lightning, forest fires o○ likely interactions

Table 4-2 Potential Issues, Proposed Mitigation and Predicted Residual Effects for the Project

Environmental Component Potential Effect Proposed Mitigation Predicted Residual

Effect


• exhaust emissions from stationary and mobile equipment associated with construction activities;

• increased dust generated during construction activities;

• increased noise levels from construction may cause annoyance to humans; and

• increased noise levels alter movement and behaviour of wildlife. 1

• equipment will adhere to federal emission standards;

• environmentally accepted dust suppressants and/or water will be used as required; and

• heavy equipment will be outfitted with mufflers to dampen noise pollution.

• no residual effect anticipated to air quality from air emissions or dust deposition;

• no residual noise effect anticipated for humans; and

• altered movement and behaviour of wildlife from noise. 1

Surface Water (Water Quality)

• alteration to water quality; • changes in water quality from spills (e.g.,

petroleum products, chemicals); and • shoreline or basin alteration.

• safe storage and handling practices (e.g., no chemicals, fluids will be stored, located, or transferred within 90 m of Seru Bay);

• any spills will be isolated and cleaned up immediately;

• spill response equipment will be readily available;

• the discharge pipeline will terminate sufficiently far from the shore line to minimize the potential for loss of fish habitat and scour of lake bed sediments; and

• the discharge pipelines may be equipped with a diffuser to minimize velocities at the outlet.

• changes in water quality may result from treated effluent discharge;

• no residual effect anticipated from spills; and

• no residual effect anticipated to shoreline or basin alteration.

Surface Water (Sediment Quality)

• alteration to sediment quality; • changes in sediment quality from spills (e.g.,

petroleum products, chemicals); and • shoreline or basin alteration.



• spill response equipment will be readily available;

• changes in sediment quality may result from treated effluent discharge;

• no residual effect anticipated from spills; and

• no residual effect


Effect • the discharge pipeline will terminate

sufficiently far from the shore line to minimize the potential for loss of fish habitat and scour of lake bed sediments; and

• the discharge pipelines may be equipped with a diffuser to minimize velocities at the outlet.

anticipated to shoreline or basin alteration

Aquatic Biology

• changes in habitat quality; • fish health; • loss or alteration of fish habitat; and • contamination from spills (e.g., petroleum

products, chemicals).

• the discharge pipelines will terminate sufficiently far from the shore line to minimize the potential for loss of fish habitat and scour of lake bed sediments;

• construction activities will occur outside of the spring spawning period;

• the discharge pipelines may be equipped with a diffuser to minimize velocities at the outlet and optimize mixing of treated effluent and lake water;


• any spills will be isolated and cleaned up immediately; and

• spill response equipment will be readily available.

• a review of the effects will be completed as part of the EIS to determine if there is potential for affecting fish health;

• effects to fish habitat quality cannot be clearly defined until the description for the Project is finalized; and

• no residual effect anticipated from spills.

Terrestrial Environment

• disturbance to soil profile (e.g., soil loss under infrastructure, compaction);

• erosion of exposed soil; • soil contamination from spills; • loss of vegetation from land clearing; • loss and/or disturbance to rare plant species; • sensory effects (e.g., noise, lights, smell,

presence of humans) during construction of the Project may alter movement and behaviour of wildlife;

• habitat loss and fragmentation from the Project may alter movement and behaviour of wildlife;

• existing cleared areas will be used where possible reducing disturbance to soil profile;

• topsoil will be salvaged for use as reclamation material during decommissioning;

• road ditches and other areas of exposed soil will be re-vegetated;

• erosion and sediment control structures will be in place when working near waterbodies;


• no residual effects anticipated to soil;

• no residual effect anticipated from spills;

• loss of vegetation ; • disturbance to rare

plant species; • altered movement

and behaviour of wildlife from sensory effects;

• altered movement and behaviour of


Effect and

• wildlife health. • spill response equipment will be readily

available ; • existing cleared areas will be used where

possible reducing disturbance to vegetation communities;

• detailed rare plant surveys will be completed prior to construction, and the Project footprint will attempt to avoid currently know rare plant locations;

• limit the amount of noise from the site with the use of appropriate exhaust mufflers (e.g., fit diesel generator units with high-performance engine exhaust silencers);

• construction activities are expected to be completed in as expeditious manner as safety allows; and

• existing cleared areas will be used where possible reducing habitat loss to wildlife.

wildlife from habitat loss and fragmentation; and

• a review of the effects will be completed as part of the EIS to determine if there is potential for affecting wildlife health.

Socio-economic

• conventional health and safety of workers; • disturbance to known or previously undiscovered

heritage and archaeological resources; • employment of local communities; • disruption to land use; • aesthetics; and • human health.

• Cameco will maintain or enhance the current health and safety management program throughout the construction and operation of the proposed Project;

• surveys for heritage resources will be completed prior to construction;

• disturbed areas will be used where possible; and

• site restoration and reclamation to disturbed areas at decommissioning.

• no residual effects anticipated to heritage resources; and

• a review of the effects will be completed as part of the EIS to determine if there is potential for affecting human health.

1 potential residual effects of noise on altered movement and behaviour of wildlife are included and described as “sensory effects” in the Terrestrial Environment component.

Table 4-3 Determination of Signifance for Residual Effects Resulting from the Project

Environmental

Component Predicted Residual

Effect Direction Magnitude Geographic

Extent Duration Reversibility Frequency Likelihood Ecological

Context Significance

Surface Water (Water Quality)

Changes in water and sediment quality

Negative Moderate Local Medium-term

Reversible Continuous Very Likely Moderate Not Significant

Surface Water (Sediment Quality)

Changes in sediment quality


Reversible Continuous Very Likely Moderate Not Significant

Aquatic Biology (Aquatic Habitat,)

Changes in fish habitat quality

Negative Low Local Medium-term

Reversible Continuous Likely Moderate Not Significant

Aquatic Biology (Aquatic VECs)

Changes in the health of aquatic VECs


Reversible Continuous Likely Moderate Not Significant

Terrestrial Environment (Vegetation)

Loss of vegetation communities


Reversible Continuous Very Likely Low Not Significant

Terrestrial Environment (Wildlife)

Sensory effects (e.g., noise, lights, smell, presence of humans) may alter movement and behaviour of wildlife


Reversible Continuous Very Likely Low Not Significant

Terrestrial Environment (Wildlife)

Habitat loss and fragmentation may alter movement and behaviour of wildlife


Reversible Continuous Likely Low Not Significant

Terrestrial Environment (Wildlife VECs)

Changes in wildlife health


Reversible Continuous Unlikely Low Not Significant

Human Health Changes in human health


Reversible Continuous Unlikely Low Not Significant

Table 4-4 Summary of Potential Residual Effects from the Project

Environmental Component

Biophysical Socio-economic


Ground water Surface Water Aquatic

BiologyTerrestrial

Environment Human Health1 Aboriginal Interest1

Land and Resource

Use1

Physical and

Cultural Heritage1

Possible Effects of

Environment on Project

Project-Specific Physical Works and

Activities

Air

Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al, D

ust)

Noi

se

Gre

enho

use

Gas

em

issi

ons

Gro

undw

ater

Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al/T

herm

al)

Flow

or W

ater

Tab

le E

leva

tion

Wat

er Q

ualit

y (C

hem

ical

/The

rmal

)

Dra

inag

e or

Stre

am/L

ake

Leve

l

Sho

relin

e or

Bas

in A

ltera

tion

Sed

imen

t Qua

lity

Aqu

atic

Bio

ta

Aqu

atic

Hab

itat

Veg

etat

ion

Com

mun

ities

/Spe

cies

Wild

life

Hab

itat

Soi

l Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al/P

hysi

cal)

Rad

iatio

n D

oses

to G

ener

al P

ublic

Rad

iatio

n D

oses

to W

orke

rs

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to P

ublic

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to W

orke

rs

Con

vent

iona

l Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y

Use

of L

ands

for T

radi

tiona

l Pur

pose

s

Use

of R

esou

rces

for T

radi

tiona

l Pur

pose

s

Rec

reat

ion

Nav

igat

ion

Fore

stry

, Hun

ting,

Tra

ppin

g, F

ishi

ng

Arc

haeo

logy

Vie

wsc

ape

Oth

er (e

.g. s

cien

tific

, his

toric

, pal

eaon

togi

cal)

Sei

smic

or V

olca

nic

Act

ivity

Oth

er S

urfa

ce G

eolo

gica

l Pro

cess

es*

Ext

rem

e W

eath

er E

vent

s an

d H

azar

ds**

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Routine Operations ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Malfunctions/Accidents ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

OPERATION PHASE



DECOMMISSIONING PHASE



ABANDONMENT PHASE

Routine Operations ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Malfunctions/Accidents ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

INTERACTIONS FROM OTHER PROJECTS (PAST, PRESENT, and FORESEEABLE FUTURE) REQUIRING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT2

Historical Cigar Lake effluent release ● ● ● ●

Cigar Lake sewage release ● ● ● ●

McArthur River effluent release ● ● ● ●

1 indirect effects resulting from changes to the environment from project effects (consideration of direct effects is discretionary) 2 evaluation looks at residual environmental effects of project in combination with environmental effects of other projects * includes erosion, land/rock/mud slides, avalanches, unstable soils ** includes storms, floods, xtreme precipitation, wind, lightning, forest fires e● potential residual effects

FIGURES

Figure 1-1

Location of the Cigar Lake Mine Site

President and ChiefExecutive Officer

Senior Vice-President andChief Operating Officer

Senior Vice-PresidentGovernance, Law, andCorporate Secretary

Vice-President Safety,Health, Environment &

Quality

DirectorSHEQ Systems

DirectorEnvironmental

Affairs

Vice-President Mining

DirectorTechnical Services

DirectorCompliance &

Licensing

Mine Manager

Chief MineEngineer Chief Geologist Project

Engineers

MaintenanceSuperintendent

SuperintendentProcess

SuperintendentSafety, Health,Environment &

Radiation

SuperintendentQuality,

Compliance &Licensing

Vice-President MajorProjects

SuperintendentHuman

Resources

Cigar LakeGeneral Manager

ManagerEngineering

Corporate

Site

Legend

DirectorTechnical Services

Project Manager

Chief InternalAuditor

DirectorCAPIP

Figure 2-1Integrated Management Organization Chart for the Cigar Lake Operation

Figure 2-2

Proposed Concept for Routine and Non-routine water Discharge Pipeline to Seru Bay

Figure 2-3

Schematic Diagram of Existing and Proposed Water Treatment and Release Circuits

New Pump House

Discharge to Seru Bay

Monitoring Pond

Pump house

Discharge to Seru Bay Via Aline

Lake

Mine Water

Contingency Mine Water Pumps

Reagent Addition Building #2

Mine Water Treatment

Submersible Mine Water Pumps

Reagent Addition Building #1

Monitoring Ponds

Surface Water

Production Contingency Pond #2

Plant

Figure 2-4

Location of Existing Pipeline and Water Discharge Course to Aline Lake and Seru Bay

Figure 2-5

Aline Lake

Figure 2-6

Aline Creek

Figure 2-7

Cross-section of a Typical Pipe Bench and Access Road Design

Dimensional measurements are shown in millimetres

Figure 2-8

Vegetation Along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor Adjacent to the Existing Access Road

Documents

CIGAR LAKE PROJECT - Environment