A New Fish Habitat Management Regime for Yukon Placer Mining

Transcription

1 A New Fish Habitat Management Regime for Yukon Placer Mining September 2007 Prepared for Community and First Nation Information Meetings

2 Introduction and Review

3 Why A New Regime? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a decision to phase out the Yukon Placer Authorization. Fisheries & Oceans Canada, the Yukon government and the Council for Yukon First Nations agreed to develop new system for managing Yukon placer mining under the Fisheries Act by 2007.

4 What is the proposed new regime? It is not intended to address land-based placer mining activities which do not effect fish and fish habitat. Examples of such activities include: residences on placer claims terrestrial animal habitat abandonment of equipment These or other activities are managed under the Placer Mining Act, the Placer Mining Land Use Regulation, and the Wildlife Act.

5 Management Objectives The new Regime must recognize: The importance of a sustainable placer industry, and The importance of conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat supporting fisheries

6 Expected Outcomes The new Regime must: Be responsive to area and topographical differences Be achievable and science-based Incorporate experience and traditional knowledge Include a schedule for implementation Be a harmonized, efficient and timely approach Be fair and understandable to industry

7 Yukon Placer Secretariat Intergovernmental coordinating agency responsible for: Finalizing the Regime Planning and conducting consultation Obtaining Traditional Knowledge (TK) Planning Regime implementation The Secretariat reports to a committee of representatives from Yukon Government, Council of Yukon First Nations and Fisheries and Oceans Canada

8 Three-Phase Consultation Phase 1 Present key concepts Phase 2 Present detailed information Gather input Gather Traditional Knowledge Phase 3 Review how input has been used Final opportunity to comment

9 Traditional Knowledge Gathered with assistance and direction from each First Nation First Nation will identify TKholders Will be used together with local and scientific knowledge in Regime

10 The Challenge and the Solution

11 Placer mining activities and the Fisheries Act Placer mining activities may harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat. Stripping Water acquisition

12 Placer mining activities and the Fisheries Act Fish habitat may not be harmfully altered, disrupted or destroyed except when authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

13 Avoiding harmful effects The potentially harmful effects of placer mining must be avoided or eliminated whenever possible. By re-designing or re-locating a project, or By the application of mitigative measures

14 Avoiding harmful effects All placer mining activities have been analyzed to determine which effects can be avoided or eliminated by employing mitigative measures. Settling ponds Re-vegetation

15 Residual effects The potentially harmful effects of placer mining that can not be entirely eliminated are called residual effects.

16 Placer mining activities that must be authorized under the Fisheries Act Placer mining activities that result in residual effects must be authorized under the Fisheries Act.

17 How habitat management decisions are made DFO uses the Risk Management Decision-making Framework to determine how to manage individual project proposals. The potential risk of each activity is assessed (high, medium, low, or none) The sensitivity of habitat is determined by considering traditional knowledge, and physical and biological factors (high, medium, low, or not fish habitat)

18 How habitat management decisions are made DFO uses the Risk Management Decision-making Framework to determine how to manage individual project proposals. The potential risk of each activity is assessed (high, medium, low, or none) The sensitivity of habitat is determined by considering traditional knowledge, and physical and biological factors (high, medium, low, or not fish habitat)

19 Watershed-based authorizations Most placer mining activities that may harmfully alter, destroy or disrupt fish habitat will be managed by watershed-based authorizations.

20 Guidebook of mitigative measures The Guidebook is a source of mitigative measures for all stages of a placer mining operation. Protective berm Settling ponds

21 Compliance monitoring and inspections All licensed placer mines will be inspected regularly to ensure compliance with authorizations and the applicable legislation.

22 Adaptive management framework An adaptive management framework will be used to ensure the authorizations are achieving their objective.

23 Adaptive management, traditional knowledge, and effects-monitoring The AMF will rely on traditional knowledge, and the results of three effects-monitoring programs, each governed by a strict protocol. Aquatic health monitoring

24 Adaptive management, traditional knowledge, and effects-monitoring The AMF will rely on traditional knowledge, and the results of three effects-monitoring programs, each governed by a strict protocol. Aquatic health monitoring Water quality objective monitoring

25 Adaptive management, traditional knowledge, and effects-monitoring The AMF will rely on traditional knowledge, and the results of three effects-monitoring programs, each governed by a strict protocol. Aquatic health monitoring Water quality objective monitoring Economic health monitoring

26 Adaptive management decisions The combined results will be evaluated on an annual basis. The adaptive management process may result in changes to authorizations to ensure the management objectives are achieved.

27 Other Significant Features of the New Regime

28 Other features of the new regime Water quality objectives in addition to discharge standards Higher standards for settling pond design Higher standards for diversion channels Increased protection for freshwater fish habitat Habitat suitability classification of all stream reaches in watersheds governed by an authorization

29 Outline Risk Management Watershed Authorizations Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Reclamation of Yukon Placer Mines Watershed Sensitivity and Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Habitat Suitability Classification Maps

30 Outline Adaptive Management Framework Aquatic Health Monitoring Water Quality Objective Monitoring Economic Health Monitoring Compliance Monitoring Overview of the Process

31 Outline Risk Management Watershed Authorizations Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Reclamation of Yukon Placer Mines Watershed Sensitivity and Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Habitat Suitability Classification Maps Adaptive Management Framework Aquatic Health Monitoring Water Quality Objective Monitoring Economic Health Monitoring Compliance Monitoring Overview of the Process

32 DFO Risk Management Framework for Fish Habitat

33 DFO Risk Management Framework For Fish Habitat A structured approach to decision-making under the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act It involves three key components: Aquatic Effects Assessment Risk Assessment Risk Management

34 Aquatic Effects Assessment Pathway of Effects Analysis Stream Diversion Loss of habitat area Erosion Alteration of riparian vegetation Change in productive capacity Change in food availability and type Change in sediment concentrations Residual Effect Effect Mitigated Effect Mitigated

35 Aquatic Effects Assessment Residual Effects Water acquisition - for sluicing Sediment discharges - from sluicing Stream diversions - to get at pay dirt underneath streams Other Instream Activities - Construction of dams, dikes, settling ponds, etc.

36 DFO National Habitat Management Risk Management Matrix Chinook salmon spawning area Seasonal longnose sucker feeding area Construction of a causeway Installation of a clear span bridge

37 The Yukon Placer Risk Assessment Matrix addresses the residual effects resulting from placer mining incorporates the fish habitat suitability classifications defines the type of Authorization required for the project

38 Risk Management Residual effects to fish and fish habitat are defined for many common placer mining activities through severity of effects tables. Consideration for cumulative effects resulting from a combination of actions. Defined criteria for evaluation: Extent (footprint of proposal). Duration (amount of time residual effect will persist). Intensity (expected amount of change from baseline). Cumulative scoring through a defined approach to evaluation enables for the evaluation of effects.

39 Risk Management Severity of Effects Table Diversion Characteristics High Risk SCORE Moderate Risk SCORE Low Risk SCORE Location of Diversion Channel On the valley wall (temporary channels) 35 On the valley floor 1 Lowest point in valley- 1 Measured Length of Diversion Channel >1000m 40 >100m - <1000m 18 <100m 1 Relative Length of Diversion Channel (sinuosity) Shorter than original natural channel 20 Longer than original natural channel 2 Equal to original natural channel 0 Primary Channel Material Silt-sand (seasonal diversions only) 40 Gravel 13 Bedrock, Boulder or Cobble 0 Channel Gradient Steep (>5%) 20 Moderate (3.5-5%) 2 Low (<3.5%) 1 Conveyance capacity Seasonal Diversion year Diversion Built to Design flood 2 Rehabilitated Channel or More than design flood for 1 5 year Diversion 1 Channel Bed Elevation Relative to Adjacent Land Surface Above surface 20 Same as surface 15 Below surface 1 Fish Habitat Features Constructed in Channel None 20 - Built to Requirements 0

40 Risk Management Maximum Acceptable Scores Maximum Acceptable Risk Scores and Authorization Type for Channel Diversions Based on Fish Habitat Suitability Classification

41 Fisheries Act Authorizations

42 Fisheries Act Authorizations - Context Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act prohibits works or undertakings which result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. Section 35(2) allows for the authorization of the HADD of fish habitat. Residual Effects From Placer Mining Effluent Discharge (sediment) Diversion Channels In-stream Works Water Acquisition

43 Fisheries Act Authorizations Residual effects from placer mining activities can be authorized through: Site-specific Authorization Watershed Authorization

44 Watershed Authorizations How long will a watershed authorization be valid? Until an amendment is made through Adaptive Management, or Until the DFO Minister rescinds, amends or replaces it How will changes to authorizations be made? In accordance with steps set out in the Adaptive Management Protocol Changes will consider that a phase-in period for new rules may be needed

45 Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Reclamation of Yukon Placer Mines

46 Guidelines Why do we need Guidelines? One easily-accessible source of information Provides criteria for acceptable design standards and objectives Consistency for miners and regulators Guidance for new or inexperienced miners Provides new concepts or options for experienced miners

47 Organization of Guidelines The Guidelines have been organized in the way that a placer mining operation would be planned and implemented. Exploration and Feasibility Site Characterization Site Evaluation Site Planning and Design Mining Operation and Closure

48 Summary The Guidelines will: Assist the placer miner to develop a mine plan Provide a resource of acceptable approaches to mine site design, construction and decommissioning Help placer miners understand how to reduce the risk of certain activities to fish and fish habitat The Guidelines may also assist with developing proposals for site specific authorizations.

49 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology

50 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Is a classification process which defines: The sensitivity of a watershed to placer mining activities The suitability of fish habitat within individual watercourses

51 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Results in classification of watersheds where watershedbased Fisheries Act authorizations will be employed, and classification of all stream reaches within those watersheds. Enables the use of the risk management framework in project planning, review, and decision making processes.

52 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Consideration of Indicators: The availability of the information / data. How easily could the information / data be collected or verified. Was the information / data reliable in the context of management decisions. How well did the information / data represent the environment evaluated. Was the information / data effective in differentiating or categorizing areas. How easily could the information / data be displayed or interpreted. Was there any duplication of indicators. Were indicators independent or dependant upon other indicators selected

53 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Watershed Level: Considers indicators and defines a classification based on a cumulative scoring system at the watershedwide scale. higher score = higher sensitivity

54 Defining Watersheds Watersheds define areas where conditions of individual watershed authorizations will apply Priority is to consider watersheds with current placer mining activity In watersheds where little to no placer mining activity exists currently, site specific authorizations will be required until such time as a watershed authorization is created

55 Defining Watersheds Currently no watershed authorizations for: Liard River Alsek River Porcupine River (Yukon River Watershed) Peel River North Slope Drainages Placer mining operations proposed in these watersheds will be managed through a site specific authorization

56 Watershed Sensitivity Classification Objective is to assign a watershed sensitivity designation (Category A or B) to each watershed. Category A Watersheds Watersheds which are more susceptible to the effects of placer mining activities Category B Watersheds Watersheds which are less susceptible to the effects of placer mining activities

57 Watershed Sensitivity Classification Physical Parameters Degree of Development Degree of Development in Moderate Habitat Suitability Zone Water Quality

58 Watershed Sensitivity Classification Biological Parameter Presence of Valued Ecosystem Component (Distribution) A component of the natural environment that is considered to be of importance based on social and cultural values or scientific relevance.

59 Biological Watershed Indicator Presence of Valued Ecosystem Component Adult salmon distribution Includes all species of Pacific salmon in the Yukon (Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye) Distribution information is based on scientific, traditional and local knowledge

60 Biological Watershed Indicator Valued Ecosystem Component No known distribution or occurrence (VEC Score = 0) Historic salmon spawning areas (VEC Score = 1) Likely salmon spawning areas (not verified) (VEC Score = 2) Known salmon spawning areas (distribution limited <1.0%) (VEC Score = 4) Known salmon spawning areas (distribution broad >1.0%) (VEC Score = 9)

61 Physical Watershed Indicators Degree of Development Includes linear stream length currently subjected to placer mining activities Linear stream length subjected to past placer mining activities (but not reclaimed to current standards) Considers development that has occurred directly in, or within 30 meters of a watercourse

62 Physical Watershed Indicators Degree of Development Categories Less than 0.5% of overall watercourse length developed (Development Score = 1) Between 0.5% and 1.5% of overall watercourse length developed (Development Score = 2) Over 1.5% of overall watercourse length developed (Development Score = 3)

63 Degree of Development Watershed with Existing Development Total % Developed =2% Development Score = 3

64 Physical Watershed Indicator Degree of Development in Moderate Habitat Suitability Zones Includes linear stream length of only Moderate Habitat Suitability Zones subjected to current or to past placer mining activities (but not reclaimed to current standards) Considers development that has occurred directly in, or within 30 meters of a Moderate Habitat Suitability Zone watercourse

65 Physical Watershed Indicators Degree of Development in Moderate Habitat Suitability Zone (MHSZ) Categories Less than 0.5% of overall MHSZ watercourse length developed (MHSZ Development Score = 1) Between 0.5% and 1.5% of overall MHSZ watercourse length developed (MHSZ Development Score = 2) Over 1.5% of overall MHSZ watercourse length developed (MHSZ Development Score = 3)

66 Degree of Development in the Moderate Habitat Suitability Zones Development in the Moderate Habitat Suitability Zones = Score of 2 Total % Developed in MHSZ = 1%

67 Physical Watershed Indicators Water Quality Considers the overall natural background concentration of sediment during the open water season Measured in Total Suspended Solids Focus on the main stem of the watershed Focus on long-term trends as opposed to sporadic, infrequent events

68 Physical Watershed Indicators Water Quality Categories Greater than 100 mg/l suspended sediment (Water Quality Score = 1) Between 25 mg/l and 100 mg/l suspended sediment (Water Quality Score = 2) Less than 25 mg/l suspended sediment (Water Quality Score = 3)

69 Watershed Sensitivity Designation

70 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Reach Level: Considers indicators and defines a classification based on a cumulative scoring system at the stream reach or watercourse scale. higher score = greater suitability

71 Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Considers the suitability of habitat to key species and life stages of fish Focuses on principle components that compose physical habitat (aquatic environment) Considers abundance or restricted nature of habitats Establishes a hierarchical classification system that can be readily considered within the Risk Management Framework

72 Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Physical Watercourse Gradient Proximity to Chinook Salmon Production Areas Water Quality

73 Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Biological Presence of Chinook Salmon Production Areas Areas of Special Concern

74 Physical Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Watercourse Gradient Evaluation of the steepness of a stream channel or reach Considers that lower gradient stream reaches typically support larger numbers of fish species and life stages than higher gradient reaches Gradient is closely linked to channel morphology and habitat forming features

75 Physical Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Watercourse Gradient Categories 0 1.5% (Gradient score = 3) % (Gradient score = 2) % (Gradient score = 1) Over 5% (Default to low suitability)

76 Physical Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Proximity to Chinook Salmon Production Areas Evaluation of the upstream distance from Chinook salmon production areas Considers that the closer habitats are to production areas, the more important they are for juvenile Chinook salmon as non-natal rearing areas Relies on principle that non-natal rearing areas are critical to the survival of juvenile Chinook salmon Habitat is also utilized by a variety of other species

77 Watershed Sensitivity / Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Physical Proximity to Chinook Salmon Production Areas Categories km (Proximity score = 3) km (Proximity score = 2) km (Proximity score = 1) Over 70.0 km (Default to Low suitability)

78 Proximity to Chinook Salmon Production Areas Example Watershed With Chinook Salmon Production Areas KM = Score of KM = Score of KM = Score of 3

79 Physical Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Watercourse Water Quality Measure of naturally occurring total suspended sediment concentrations within individual watercourses during the open water season Considers that clear-flowing watercourses (those with low TSS concentrations) provide refuge habitat for fish Compares tributary and main stem TSS concentrations

80 Physical Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Water Quality Categories Tributary Concentration Main Stem Concentration Score < 25 mg/l (3) - > 100 mg/l (1) = 2 < 25 mg/l (3) - 25 mg/l mg/l (2) = mg/l (2) - > 100 mg/l (1) = 1 < 25 mg/l (3) - < 25 mg/l (3) = 1* mg/l (2) mg/l (2) = 0 > 100 mg/l (1) - > 100 mg/l (1) = 0

81 Biological Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Chinook Salmon Production Areas Considers both spawning and migration reaches (upstream for spawning adults and downstream for natal stream reared smolts) Critical linkage to ongoing survival of species Areas also provides highly suitable habitat for a variety of other species of fish (and overwintering) Typically the most restricted habitat type in a watershed

82 Biological Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators Area of Special Concern Watercourses that contain ecologically or culturally important habitats or fisheries May include habitats that support rare or locally significant species, or areas that directly support aboriginal, traditional, commercial or recreational fisheries Default value (not calculated based on remote analysis or modeling)

83 Special Considerations Fish Habitat Suitability Water Quality Zones Watercourses that are not directly accessible to fish (barriers) are defined on a site by site bases Prior Disturbance Applicable in Moderate Suitability reaches where existing conditions, due to development, are considered to be of lower suitability than that predicted in the model Allows for the temporary reduction of one habitat suitability category until reclamation occurs

84 Watershed Sensitivity and Fish Habitat Suitability Classification Methodology Chinook Salmon Spawning Areas (default value 10) Areas of Special Concern (default value 11) Stream Gradient Score (1 3) Proximity to Production Areas (1 3) + Water Quality Score (1 2) Total Reach Level Habitat Suitability Score (3 8) High (CHS or ASC) - 10 or 11 Moderate (High) - 7 or 8 Moderate (Moderate) - 5 or 6 Moderate (Low) - 2 or 3 or 4 Low* - Default (1) Low (WQ)** - Established through site specific assessment / considerations Not Fish Habitat - Established through site specific assessment / considerations

85 Watershed Sensitivity / Fish Habitat Suitability Classification

86 Watershed Sensitivity / Fish Habitat Suitability Classification

87 Adaptive Management Framework

88 Adaptive Management Framework - Objectives verifying the effectiveness of the new management system providing a rational basis for future changes to the regime integrating the results of the information generated from the three effects-monitoring programs

89 Adaptive Management Framework Key Questions to be Addressed Does the regime effectively conserve and protect fish and fish habitat supporting fisheries (i.e. no net loss of habitat), and maintain the viability of placer mining? Does the regime achieve these management objectives in Category A and Category B watersheds, and all habitat suitability types?

90 Adaptive Management Framework Critical Elements Critical elements of the Adaptive Framework include: What decisions are made in the management process Who is responsible for making these decision Information that will support decision making Who is responsible for collecting the supporting information Contribution of traditional knowledge to management decisions

91 Adaptive Management Framework Critical Elements When decisions are made What areas are affected by decisions Monitoring results that constitute an acceptable or non-acceptable outcome The management response considered appropriate, given the combined monitoring results The level of confidence that can be placed on the analysis of effects

92 Adaptive Management Framework Methodology Review reports from three effects-monitoring programs Apply decision rules Publish annual report Make recommendations respecting monitoring programs or regulatory instruments to relevant agency

93 Adaptive Management Framework Adaptive management recommendations will be made by the Implementation Management Group (IMG), or its successor Decisions related to monitoring programs will be made by the responsible agency Decisions related to watershed authorizations will be made by DFO Decisions related to water use licenses and placer mining land use approvals will be made by the Yukon Water Board.

94 Aquatic Health Monitoring

95 Aquatic Health Monitoring aquatic health will be monitored on an annual basis by DFO and Environment Yukon a defined protocol will address the locations, timing, frequency and methods employed during sampling the protocol will describe the methods used to analyze sampling data

96 Aquatic Health Monitoring Key Questions to be Addressed Are there stream systems exposed to placer mining where watershed health is not being maintained in the same condition as streams not exposed to human activity? If so, is this due to placer mining activity or to other causes? Where sites are not in reference condition, is there an improvement over time?

97 Aquatic Health Monitoring Reference Condition Approach The RCA involves collecting data from a number of stream sites that are relatively unexposed to stressors (reference sites). Reference sites are: largely unaffected by point sources of pollutants not influenced by human land use activity at the low end of any stressor gradient

98 Aquatic Health Monitoring Reference Sites The RCA attempts to explain natural variation. the range of variability in the environmental conditions of reference sites is determined variation in natural environmental conditions is correlated with variations in biota

99 Aquatic Health Monitoring Test Sites The RCA involves collecting data from sites known to be exposed to stressors (test sites) Data is analyzed to determine if the sites fall inside or outside the expected range of variability for reference sites

100 Aquatic Health Monitoring Pass or Fail Test sites are in reference condition if the expected organisms are observed If the expected organisms are not observed at a test site it is outside the reference condition and further study is required A detailed study may reveal the nature of the stressor(s) affecting the stream, and may help determine a trend in aquatic health B I O T A D E S C R I P T O R R R R R R = Reference Site R ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTOR R R R Test Site in Reference Condition: Biota Community expected for this environment R R Test Site is not in Reference Condition: Not the biota community expected for this environment. Further study needed.

101 Aquatic Health Monitoring Methodology Field data collected during sampling visits include: fish (number and species) benthic macro invertebrates basic water chemistry (ph, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) stream dimensions (width, depth and flow) in-stream and riparian zone habitat assessment a water sample for laboratory analysis (nutrients and physical and chemical properties)

102 Aquatic Health Monitoring Methodology GIS data assembled for analysis may include: catchment morphology forest fire history bedrock and surficial geology land cover (e.g. percent of the catchment that is forest, meadow, alpine, etc.) mineral claim and land use information

103 Aquatic Health Monitoring sampling will begin no earlier than the second week of July and end no later than the start of the second week of August four Category A and four Category B watersheds will be monitored every year three test sites and one reference site will be sampled in each watershed up to four additional remote sites may be re-sampled each year if warranted by results from preceding years

104 Aquatic Health Monitoring Define the assessment area Determine criteria for reference condition Choose reference and test sites Sample community and habitat of reference and test sites Describe variation among reference communities Explain variation among reference communities Assess each test site by comparing the observed to the expected community

105 Economic Health Monitoring

106 Economic Health Monitoring Economic health will be evaluated on an annual basis by the Yukon government A defined protocol will establish the manner in which trends in economic health are assessed

107 Economic Health Monitoring Key Questions to be Addressed Are there changes in industry viability? If so, can these changes be attributed to the new requirements of the regime?

108 Economic Health Monitoring - Methodology A two-step approach will be employed to assess the regime s effect on economic health. Step 1: Evaluate indicators to establish if a trend exists Step 2: Determine whether or not any trend can be attributed to the regime

109 Economic Health Monitoring - Methodology Two types of industry viability indicators have been selected. Type A: viability indicators potentially correlated with new regulatory regime Type B: viability indicators not attributable to new regulatory regime

110 Economic Health Monitoring - Methodology A few examples of Type A indicators are: the number of placer mines in production gold royalties collected number of person days of employment level of regime noncompliance (number of inspector s directions )

111 Economic Health Monitoring - Methodology If a trend to declining economic health is detected in Step 1, Step 2 of the Protocol is invoked. Step 2 will be undertaken using a Panel Survey. A panel survey is a sampling technique where the same set of individuals (or individuals who fit a similar cross-sectional profile) are asked the same questions at periodic intervals.

112 Economic Health Monitoring - Methodology The panel survey will include questions designed to determine whether an adverse trend can be attributed to factors unrelated to the new regime (Type B indicators). Some of these factors are: gold price cash costs (weighted index of operating costs including fuel costs, foreign exchange rate, borrowing costs, equipment costs and labour costs) overall regulatory requirements (e.g. YESAA, time and fees for representative permit) natural conditions (snow pack, water flows, forest fires) relative cost of mine site access relative favourability of deposit characteristics

113 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring

114 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring water quality objectives will be monitored by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources the protocol outlines in detail the locations, timing, frequency and methods employed during sampling the protocol describes the methods used to analyze sampling data

115 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring Key Questions to be Addressed Are the WQO established in the new regime being achieved? If not, is this due to placer mining or is it attributable to other causes?

116 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring Methodology Natural Resource Officers/Mining and researchoriented staff will collect depth-integrated grab samples Automated samplers will collect time-integrated samples personnel will also measure the ph, conductivity and temperature of the water and take stream flow measurements

117 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring For each watershed, five sites along the river s main stem will be chosen to conduct water quality sampling. One site will always be at the mouth of the main stem, and four other sites will be situated along the main stem downstream of habitat classification change points.

118 Water Quality Objectives Monitoring sampling will occur at a minimum of four times per year (twice during high flow and twice during low flow periods) sampling will begin in May and continue until the end of the placer mining season (late October in some years) an effort will be made to sample at the WQO monitoring points when upstream placer mines are in production

119 Compliance Monitoring

120 Compliance and Enforcement ROUTINE INSPECTIONS are conducted by Natural Resource Officers/Mining employed by EM&R. BEFORE APRIL 1, 2003 inspection and enforcement activities were governed by an MoU between DIAND, DFO and DoE. A protocol to replace this MoU has been formalized by EM&R and DFO. NATURAL RESOURCE OFFICERS (mining inspectors) have been designated as inspectors under the Fisheries Act.

121 Compliance and Enforcement Inspections are conducted: to ensure that operations are in compliance with the terms and conditions of water use licences and watershed-based authorizations to evaluate the performance of settling facilities to assess the effectiveness of mitigative measures and reclamation work

122 Legislation Inspections are conducted under the following legislation and applicable regulations: the Fisheries Act the Waters Act the Placer Mining Act the Environment Act

123 Action Level Approach The Action Level approach recognizes: The reliable and effective interaction between inspector and operator The prevalence of settling facilities designed to discharge sediment in concentrations significantly lower than required by the current regulatory regime Richard Hartmier Photo

124 Action Level Approach Encourages operators to employ a range of techniques to maintain sediment discharges below the action level under normal operations Average discharge concentrations below the action level over the life of the mine Allows for short term or isolated events with higher discharge levels Establishes an absolute maximum that an operation must not exceed Richard Hartmier Photo

125 Water Quality Objectives and Sediment Management Design Target: The best settling facility that can be established at a placer mining operation, given the prevailing site characteristics Action Level: The end-of-pipe sediment concentrations that must not be exceeded --on average-- for the life of the mining operation Compliance Level: A maximum end-of-pipe concentration that must never be exceeded

126 Water Quality Objectives and Sediment Discharge Standards Watersheds of Higher Sensitivity Habitat Sensitivity Sensitivity Indicators Description WQO 9 Sediment Discharge Standard High Tier 1 1 Salmonid spawning 4 < 25 mg/l 0 mg/l 10 Moderate-H Tier 2 2 Rearing CH 5 High < 25 mg/l < 200 mg/l 11 Moderate-M Tier 2 Rearing CH 5 Moderate < 50 mg/l < 200 mg/l Moderate-L Tier 2 Rearing CH Low Rearing Other High 6 < 80 mg/l Design Target: 0.2 ml/l 12 Action Level: ml/l 15 Compliance Level: ml/l Low Tier 3 3 Rearing Other Low 7 < 200 mg/l Design Target: 0.2 ml/l 12 Action Level: 1.0 ml/l Compliance Level: 1.5 ml/l Water Quality Field No Fish 8 None Standard to meet downstream Water Quality 16

127 Water Quality Objectives and Sediment Discharge Standards Watersheds of Lower Sensitivity Habitat Sensitivity Sensitivity Indicators Description WQO 9 Sediment Discharge Standard High Tier 1 1 Salmonid spawning 4 < 25 mg/l 0 mg/l 10 Moderate-H Tier 2 2 Rearing CH 5 High < 25 mg/l < 200 mg/l 11 Moderate-M Tier 2 Rearing CH 5 Moderate < 100 mg/l Design Target: 0.2 ml/l 12 Action Level: ml/l 15 Compliance Level: ml/l Moderate-L Tier 2 Rearing CH Low Rearing Other High 6 < 200 mg/l Design Target: 0.2 ml/l 12 Action Level: 1.0 ml/l Compliance Level: 2.0 ml/l 17 Low Tier 3 3 Rearing Other Low 7 < 300 mg/l Design Target: 0.2 ml/l 12 Action Level: 1.0 ml/l Compliance Level: 2.5 ml/l 18 Water Quality Field No Fish 8 None Standard to meet downstream Water Quality 16

128 Example of Settling Pond Performance SETTLING POND PERFORMANCE Settleable Solids Discharge (ml/l) Series Days of Operations and Sampling

129 An Overview of The Process

130 EXISTING PROCESS Land Mining Land Use Operating Plan Placer Activities Socio Economic Water Impact Assessment Through YESAA Water Use License Fish Yukon Placer Authorization

131 PROPOSED REGIME Land Mining Land Use Operating Plan Placer Activities Socio Economic Water Impact Assessment Through YESAA Water Use License Fish Separate Watershed Authorizations

132 Environmental Assessment Placer mining land use and water use activities will always trigger an evaluation by a Designated Office, under the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act (YESAA). The Secretariat has concluded there are no advantages to having the proposed regime reviewed under YESAA as a Plan.

133 Implementation of New Regime

134 Benefits of proposed Regime Tailored to unique Yukon environment Improved aquatic health Protection for fish and fish habitat Greater certainty for industry Incorporates Traditional Knowledge Transparent and integrated approach Clear standards and rules Adaptive Management Integrated resource management including YG, DFO and First Nations

135 206B Lowe Street l P.O. Box 2703 (PS-206) Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2C6 l Phone: l Fax: