WOLVERINE MINE MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PLAN 2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Transcription

1 WOLVERINE MINE MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE PLAN 211 ANNUAL REPORT Prepared for: Yukon Energy, Mines and Resources Prepared by: Yukon Zinc Corporation Vancouver, British Columbia March 31, 212

2 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Surface Water Monitoring Surface Water Quality Monitoring Wolverine Lake Wolverine Creek Upper Go Creek Watershed Tailings Facility Lower Go Creek Watershed Money Creek Watershed Mine Access Route Hydrology Results W9 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results W12 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results W21 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results W22 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results W8 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results W82 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results Ground Water Monitoring Results Groundwater Sampling Program Groundwater Quality Monitoring Wolverine Creek Alluvial Groundwater Wells Wolverine Creek Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Wells Wolverine Creek Deep Bedrock Groundwater Wells Tailings Storage Facility Alluvial and Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Wells Go Creek Shallow Bedrock and Alluvial Groundwater Wells Groundwater Water Levels and Temperatures Piezometer Monitoring Aquatic Life and Sediment Sediment Quality Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 i

3 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Periphyton Benthic Invertebrates Weather Monitoring Program Weather Station Data Snow Water Equivalent Tailings Storage Facility Monitoring Engineering Inspections Progressive Reclamation Effectiveness Monitoring Program Biopass System Geochemical Testwork Humidity Cell Tests Geochemical Characterization Underground Mine Monitoring Underground Water Quality Sampling Paste Leachate Monitoring Wash Stations In situ Geochemical Test Pads Summary Works Cited List of Tables Table 2 1: Surface Water Monitoring Sites and Dates Sampled... 2 Table 2 2: Manual flow monitoring results, January December Table 3 1: Groundwater Monitoring Sites and Dates Sampled Table 4 1: 211 Sediment Quality Results Table 4 2: Periphyton Taxonomic Composition Table 4 3: Periphyton (as Chlorophyll a) 211 Results Table 4 4: Community Characteristic Statistics (Averages) from Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomy Data... 4 Table 5 1: Snow Pack Measurements March and April Table 6 1: Surveillance Requirements for the Tailings Storage Facility Table 1 1: 211 Humidity Cell Composition, Date of Commencement and Decommissioning, and Weeks in Operation Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 ii

4 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 List of Figures Figure 2 1: Lead in Wolverine Lake Stations, Jan 21 December Figure 2 2: Selenium in Wolverine Creek Area Stations, Jan 21 December Figure 2 3: Copper in Upper Go Creek Stations, Jan 21 December Figure 2 4: Nickel at stations W85 and T1, Jan Dec 211 and July 21 Dec 211, respectively... 7 Figure 2 5: Zinc in Lower Go Creek Stations, Jan 21 December Figure 2 6: Cadmium in Money Creek Stations, Jan 21 December Figure 2 7: Aluminum for Stations Adjacent to the Mine Access Road, Jan 21 December Figure 2 8: W9 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 9: W9 Monthly Average Hydrograph, April 27 December Figure 2 1: W12 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 11: W12 Monthly Average Hydrograph, May 29 December Figure 2 12: W21 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 13: W21 Hydrograph, March 27 December Figure 2 14: W22 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 15: W22 Monthly Average Hydrograph, May 28 December Figure 2 16: W8 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 17: W8 Monthly Average Hydrograph, September 26 December Figure 2 18: W82 Stage Storage Curve Prior to May Figure 2 19: W82 Stage Storage Curve Following May Figure 2 2: W82 Monthly Average Hydrograph, November 27 December Figure 3 1: Cadmium Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Alluvial Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Figure 3 2: Iron Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Figure 3 3: Nickel Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Deep Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Figure 3 4: Copper Concentrations in Groundwater Stations near Tailings Storage Facility, Jan 29 Dec Figure 3 5: Arsenic Concentrations in Go Creek Alluvial and Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Figure 3 6: Groundwater Monitoring Wells Water Level and Temperature Figure 3 7: Pieziometric and Precipitation Data Figure 3 8: Average Pieziometric Elevation Data Figure 4 1: Periphyton Biomass (±1 Standard Deviation) at Stations Sampled in 25, 27, 21 & Figure 4 2: Total Benthic Invertebrate Density (±1 Standard Deviation) at Stations Sampled in 25, 27, 21 and Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 iii

5 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Figure 5 1: Wolverine Mine Daily Precipitation and Average Daily Temperature Figure 5 2: 211 Monthly Evaporation Figure 6 1: Tailings Facility 211 Piezometer Results List of Appendices Appendix A: Surface Water Quality Graphs Appendix B: Groundwater Quality Graphs Appendix C: Environmental Effects Monitoring First Interpretive Report December 5, 211 Appendix D: Tailings Humidity Cell Update Report Marsland Environmental Associates Appendix E: Waste Rock and Ore Humidity Cell Update Report AMEC Earth and Environmental Appendix F: In situ Geochemical Test Pads (Lysimeters) Graphs Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 iv

6 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 1 Introduction This report summarizes the results of monitoring and surveillance conduced as per Monitoring and Surveillance Plan V211 3 for 211. This report is submitted as part of the requirements of Quartz Mining Licence (QML) 6. As per Section 1.5, on or before March 31 st of each year... the Licensee must submit a written report covering the period of January 1 st to December 31 st of the prior year which includes... a summary of the programs undertaken for environmental monitoring and surveillance as outlined in the Monitoring and Surveillance Plan. Monitoring results reported herein include: Surface water including water quality sampling, hydrology and acute lethality testing; Groundwater including water quality sampling, water levels and water table (piezometers); Aquatic ecosystems, including: sediment chemistry, benthos and periphyton; Weather including temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and evaporation; Tailings storage facility monitoring; Engineering inspections for physical stability; Reclamation program effectiveness and Bio pass system design monitoring; Geochemical testwork; and Underground mine monitoring. 2 Surface Water Monitoring The surface water monitoring program for the Wolverine Mine includes the monitoring of hydrology and water quality at 21 locations at the Wolverine Mine site (including tailings storage facility), and in the Wolverine Lake, Go Creek and Money Creek watersheds. Water quality results are compared to the historic ( ) baseline average and 95 th percentile values provided in the Lorax Environmental Baseline Characterization Summary Report provided in Appendix A of Monitoring and Surveillance Plan V211 3 (Baseline Report). 2.1 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Surface water quality for the purposes of baseline monitoring (as per A Licence QZ4 65 (Yukon Water Board, 27)) was taken at the locations and dates summarized in Table 2 1. A total of 196 sample sets were analyzed for physical parameters, TSS, dissolved and total metals (by ICP MS) and mercury (by CVAS), as well as cyanide and dissolved organic carbon for select sampling sites (W16 & W31). Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 1

7 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Table 2 1: Surface Water Monitoring Sites and Dates Sampled Sampling Site January February March April May June July August September October November December L1 28 Jan 24 Feb 25 Mar 12 Apr 29 May 29 Jun 2 Jul 6 Aug 18 Sep 1 Oct 29 Nov 26 Dec W1 A A 25 Mar 12 Apr A 3 Jun 3 Jul 3 Aug 12 Sep 1 Oct A A W8 D D D D 28 May 29 Jun 2 Jul 6 Aug 12 Sep 29 Nov 13 Dec W9 D D D D 28 May 29 Jun 2 Jul 6 Aug 12 Sep 2 Oct 29 Nov 13 Dec W12 A A A A 25 May 14 Jun 27 Jul 22 Aug 5 Sep E 9 Nov 6 Dec W14 A A A A 25 May 14 Jun 27 Jul 22 Aug E E 9 Nov 6 Dec W15 31 Jan 21 Feb 28 Mar 23 Apr 25 May 1 Jun 2 Jul 1 Aug 11 Sep 12 Oct 9 Nov 1 Jan W16 3 Jan 2 Feb 27 Mar 23 Apr 2 May 8 Jun 2 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep 3 Oct 9 Nov 2 Dec W21 2 Jan 13 Feb 19 Mar 13 Apr 14 May 12 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 1 Sep 3 Sep 5 Nov 3 Dec W22 2 Jan 2 Feb 19 Mar 13 Apr 14 May 12 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 1 Sep 3 Sep 5 Nov 3 Dec W31 D D D D 17 May 8 Jun 1 Jul 6 Aug 7 Sep 3 Oct 6 Nov 26 Dec W4 2 Jan 2 Feb 19 Mar 13 Apr 14 May 12 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 1 Sep 2 Oct 5 Nov 3 Dec W71 22 Jan 18 Feb 19 Mar 18 Apr 14 May 6 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 3 Sep 3 Sep 5 Nov 4 Dec W72 22 Jan 18 Feb 19 Mar 18 Apr 14 May 6 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 3 Sep 3 Sep 5 Nov 4 Dec W73 22 Jan 18 Feb 19 Mar 18 Apr 2 May 6 Jun 1 Jul 5 Aug 3 Sep 3 Sep 5 Nov 4 Dec W8 A 13 Feb A 19 Apr 25 May 14 Jun 27 Jul 15 Aug E 31 Oct 9 Nov 6 Dec W81 31 Jan 28 Feb Apr 25 May 1 Jun 2 Jul 1 Aug 11 Sep 9 Oct 28 Nov 31 Dec W82 5 Jan 22 Feb 3 Mar 23 Apr 21 May 1 Jun 2 Jul 11 Aug 9 Sep 3 Oct 3 Nov 18 Dec T1 4 Jan 2 Feb 26 Mar 19 Apr 21 May 8 Jun 2 Jul 6 Aug 7 Sep 4 Oct 3 Nov 2 Dec A = Site not sampled due to lack of safe access D = Site dry (i.e., all water tied up in storage, and/or subsurface water table low) or frozen through E = Transportation equipment under repair Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 2

8 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Laboratory results for the samples taken in 211 are compared to baseline average and 95 th percentiles provided in Appendix A of the Baseline Report. Appendix A herein provides graphical representations of the water quality results for all baseline monitoring sites for the following parameters: Conductivity Turbidity Total Aluminum Total Lead Hardness Fluoride Total Arsenic Total Mercury Total Alkalinity Sulphate Total Cadmium Total Molybdenum ph Ammonia Total Chromium Total Nickel Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Nitrate Nitrite Total Copper Total Iron Total Selenium Total Silver Total Zinc Red symbols in the graphs and in the figures below indicate the result was below the analytical detection limit, and is shown as being equal to the detection limit. The majority of physical parameters and major anions (conductivity, hardness, ph, DOC, and sulphate) for all sites were within the average provided in the Baseline Report, and were generally below the 95 th percentile value. TSS concentrations were slightly higher at many of the sites sampled in May, although still below the 95 th percentile values, likely due to increased sedimentation associated with freshet flow. Also, nitrate and nitrite concentrations were much higher than normal in samples taken in September through December 211, due to to interferences with the analytical equipment, caused by exceedances of the standard hold times. The interferences also resulted in laboratory detection limits that were an order of magnitude greater than the limits used previously (i.e.,.2 mg/l vs..2 mg/l). The results for total metals were also within the average baseline range. The majority of results were less than the average values, and almost all were less than the 95 th percentile values. ~84% of results for silver and ~98% of the mercury results were below the reportable detection limit, hence these parameters were not graphed, nor are provided in Appendix A. Noticeable exceptions for the period include: Total copper at station W1 in June was greater than the 95 th percentile baseline value; however, was below the average value throughout the rest of 211. In May, at stations W12, W14, W15, W16, W21, W31, W4, W72, W8, W81, and W85, metal concentrations were slightly higher than the concentrations otherwise achieved throughout 211, due to the corresponding high TSS concentrations. At station W22 in March metal concentrations were much higher than the concentrations otherwise achieved throughout 211, again due to the corresponding high TSS concentration (18 mg/l). At stations L1 & W82 the May and October metal concentrations were also slightly higher than the concentrations otherwise achieved throughout 211; however, did not correspond to high TSS concentrations. Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 3

9 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Wolverine Lake Surface water quality results for Wolverine Lake (stations W1 and L1) were mostly below the average baseline concentrations for the parameters outlined above (see graphs in Appendix A). Concentrations remained in a similar range throughout the year, as demonstrated by the lead concentrations shown in Figure 2 1. Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Lead (mg/l) L1 Figure 2 1: Lead in Wolverine Lake Stations, Jan 21 December 211 Lead (mg/l) W1 Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 4

10 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Wolverine Creek Surface water quality results for W8 at the outflow of Campbell Creek into Little Wolverine Lake, and stations W9 and W82 in Wolverine Creek, were also generally within the range of the average and 95 th percentile values, although samples were not taken at stations W8 and W9 in January April 211, due to the water columns at those site being frozen through. 211 metal and nutrient concentrations were also comparable to 21 concentrations..7.6 Selenium (mg/l) Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile W9 Figure 2 2: Selenium in Wolverine Creek Area Stations, Jan 21 December 211 Selenium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) W82 W8 Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 5

11 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Upper Go Creek Watershed Surface water quality results for the Upper Go Creek watershed (stations W31, W15, W16 and W81) were also generally near or below the average baseline concentrations in early 211, with concentrations rising in May (again due to high TSS concentrations), and decreasing again in June, as shown in the copper concentrations presented in Figure 2 3. Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile.8 W W16 Copper (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 W31 Dec-11 Figure 2 3: Copper in Upper Go Creek Stations, Jan 21 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Copper (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) W81

12 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Tailings Facility Tailings facility monitoring (station T1) commenced in July 21 to examine the chemistry of the tailings supernatant. Also, as mentioned above, a monitoring point (W85) was added in 211 to represent the future location of effluent discharge from the tailings water treatment plant. Monitoring prior to discharge will represent baseline water quality against which water chemistry during discharge can be compared. The results of sampling at stations T1 and W85 are presented in Figure 2 5 for nickel. As these stations were not included in the Baseline Report, there are no average values or 95 th percentiles against which to compare the 21/211 data W Nickel (mg/l) Figure 2 4: Nickel (mg/l) Nickel at stations W85 and T1, Jan Dec 211 and July 21 Dec 211, respectively T1 Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 7

13 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Lower Go Creek Watershed Surface water quality results for the Lower Go Creek watershed (stations W8 and W12) also followed similar trends, and were generally below the average baseline concentrations in 211. Similarly to upper Go Creek, metal and nutrient concentrations spiked in May, and decreased again in June, as shown for zinc concentrations presented in Figure 2 5. W12 had a similar spike again in August 212 in zinc and cadmium, which was not associated with elevated TSS. Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile.7.6 W8.6.5 W12 Zinc (mg/l) Figure 2 5: Zinc in Lower Go Creek Stations, Jan 21 December 211 Zinc (mg/l) Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 8

14 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Money Creek Watershed Surface water quality results for the Money Creek watershed (stations W14, W22 and W4) were also generally similar between months throughout January to December 211, and concentrations were generally below the average baseline concentrations for metal and nutrient parameters. There were spikes in the metal concentrations at station W22 in February and May, due to high TSS concentrations, and spikes at stations W14 and W4 in May for the same reason, as shown in Figure 2 6 for cadmium W14 Cadmium (mg/l) Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile W22 Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Figure 2 6: Cadmium in Money Creek Stations, Jan 21 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Cadmium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) W4

15 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Mine Access Route Surface water quality results for the Mine Access Route (stations W71, W72 and W73) were also generally the same throughout January to December 211 for all sites, with slight increases in metal concentrations in the summer months (as seen for 21 in Figure 2 7 for aluminum). Generally, concentrations were below the average baseline concentrations for metal and nutrient parameters. Though there was a slight increase in the metal concentrations in the spring/summer, due to high TSS concentrations..8 W71 Aluminum (mg/l) Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile W72 Figure 2 7: Aluminum for Stations Adjacent to the Mine Access Road, Jan 21 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Aluminum (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) W73

16 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Hydrology Results Manual flow monitoring is required at stations W8, W15, W16, W31 & W81, and continuous flow monitoring is required at stations W9, W12, W21, W22, W8 and W82, as outlined in Type A Water Use Licence QZ4 65. Manual flow monitoring is taken at all hydrology stations for the purposes of establishing a stage storage curve from which the stage discharge curve is calibrated. A power trend line is fit to the stage storage curve to provide a calibration equation with which to convert downloaded water level (m) data to water flow (m 3 ). The results of the manual flow monitoring conducted from January to December 211 are provided in Table 2 2. Table 2 2: Manual flow monitoring results, January December 211 Hydrology Site W8 W9 W12 W15 W16 W21 W22 W31 W8 W81 W82 January Note 1 Note 1 Note Note 2 Note 2 Note 1 Note 2.47 Note 1 February Note 1 Note 1 Note Note 2 Note 2 Note 1 Note 1.63 Note 1 March Note 1 Note 1 Note Note 2 Note 2 Note 1 Note 1.37 Note 1 April Note 1 Note 1 Note Note 2 Note 2 Note May Note June Note 3 Note July Note Note 2 Note Note 2.13 August Note September Note October Note November Note 2 Note Note 1.3 December.16 Note 2.86 Note 2.38 Note 1 Note 2.3 Note 2 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1: Not enough flow to take accurate measurements or ice through to bottom of channel Note 2: No safe access to sampling site Note 3: Equipment malfunction The stage storage curves and monthly average stage discharge curves are presented below for continuous flow water monitoring stations W9, W12, W21, W22, W8, and W W9 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results The stage discharge curve for W9 is presented in Figure 2 8, and the monthly average hydrograph in Figure 2 9. The stage discharge curve has been updated following the installation of a Parshall flume at station W9 in July 21, which resulted in a more consistent stream channel, and more accurate manual and digital hydrology measurements. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

17 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML y =.189x.1237 R² =.635 Discharge (m 3 /s) Water Level (m) Figure 2 8: W9 Stage Discharge Curve Readings from the data logger were obscured by ice pressure effects during the winter months of 27, 28 and 29. The November 29 through March 21 average stream discharges were.34 m 3 /s; however, as this was due to ice pressure effects, the value prior to the logger freezing in October was taken to be representative of winter flows. This is shown in Figure 2 9 as an average value of.1 m 3 /s. The data logger installed at W9 was found to be damaged in March 21 and was repaired in July, represented by a gap in the data during that time. Monthly Average Stream Discharge (m 3 /s) Figure 2 9: W9 Monthly Average Hydrograph, April 27 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

18 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML W12 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results The stage discharge curve for station W12 is provided in Figure 2 1 and the average monthly hydrograph for W12 from May 29 through December 211 is presented in Figure Data collected prior to May 29 was omitted due to inconsistencies; and February to April 21, and January to April, 211 averages were adjusted to be zero due to evident ice pressure effects, as this value was expected to be more representative of actual flows than a zero value y = 7.41x R² =.8962 Discharge (m 3 /s) Water Level (m) Figure 2 1: W12 Stage Discharge Curve 1.4 Monthly Average Stream Discharges (m3/s) Figure 2 11: W12 Monthly Average Hydrograph, May 29 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

19 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML W21 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results The stage discharge curve for W21 is provided in Figure 2 12 and the monthly average hydrograph for W21 from March 27 through to December 211 is presented in Figure Ice pressure effects were observed April to May 27, Jan through May 28, March through April 29, December 29 through April 21 and December 21 through March y = x 1.11 R² =.7214 Discharge (m 3 /s) Water Level (m) Figure 2 12: W21 Stage Discharge Curve 5. Monthly Average Stream Discharges (m 3 /s) Figure 2 13: W21 Hydrograph, March 27 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

20 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML W22 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results The stage discharge curve for station W22 is provided in Figure 2 14 and the continuous hydrograph for W22 from May 28 through to December 211 is presented in Figure 2 15 as a monthly average stream discharge. High flows were observed in spring 29 and 211 and ice pressure effects (normalized to zero values in Figure 2 15) were evident during the winter months (January April 29; November December 29; April 21; Feb March 211). Although flows appear to be increasing from November 29 through March 21; and again in November 21 through January 211, these increases are likely due to ice pressure effects, as flows are usually lowest during this time of the year. Stream Discharge (m 3 /s) Monthly Average Stream Discharges (m 3 /s) Figure 2 14: y = x 3.5 R² = Water Level (m) W22 Stage Discharge Curve Figure 2 15: W22 Monthly Average Hydrograph, May 28 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

21 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML W8 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results Station W8 was sampled frequently in 29 and consequently, the resulting stage discharge is quite robust (Figure 2 16). The monthly average hydrograph for W8 from September 26 through to December 211 is presented in Figure Due to ice pressure effects, when the data logger recorded negative values the values were adjusted to zero for the purposes of calculating monthly average discharges, as represented in Figure y = x R² =.8581 Discharge (m 3 /s) Water Level (m) Figure 2 16: W8 Stage Discharge Curve 1.8 Monthly Average Stream Discharges (m 3 /s) Figure 2 17: W8 Monthly Average Hydrograph, September 26 December 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

22 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML W82 Continuous Flow Monitoring Results The stage storage curve for Station W82 is comprised of two curves: one prior to May 29 (Figure 2 18), and one following May 29 (Figure 2 19), as the logger was broken in April 29, and replaced with a new logger in May. Discharge (m 3 /s) Prior to May 29 y = x R² = Water Level (m) Figure 2 18: W82 Stage Storage Curve Prior to May y =.829x R² =.5157 May 29 Current.2 Discharge (m 3 /s) Water Level (m) Figure 2 19: W82 Stage Storage Curve Following May 29 The average monthly discharges for W82 from November 27 through December 211 are presented in Figure 2 2. High flows were observed in spring as expected. Ice pressure effects (negative values have been corrected to zero values in Figure 2 2) were evident in late December 29 through April 21, and then again in December 21 through April 211. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

23 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Monthly Average Stream Discharge (m 3 /s) Figure 2 2: W82 Monthly Average Hydrograph, November 27 December Ground Water Monitoring Results The groundwater monitoring program for the Wolverine Project includes the monitoring of water levels and water quality at 25 locations in the Wolverine Creek and Go Creek watersheds. Below are summarized the sampling dates, water quality results and water level and temperatures recorded by insitu loggers. 3.1 Groundwater Sampling Program The groundwater monitoring program for the Wolverine Mine includes the monitoring of water levels, temperature and water quality at 25 locations at the Wolverine Mine site in alluvial, shallow and deep bedrock in the Wolverine Lake and Go Creek watersheds. Groundwater quality for the purposes of baseline monitoring (as per A Licence QZ4 65) was taken at the locations and dates summarized in Table 3 1 in 211. Up to June 211 groundwater sampling was only required quarterly, hence why there are no samples for January, February, April and May. Gaps in the data in Table 3 1 represent times when the sample sites were frozen, and samples were not able to be taken. Well MW6 1D was not sampled until October as the pump was frozen into the well, and could not be extracted until that time. Overall a total of 141 sample sets were analyzed for dissolved metals by ICP trace metals scan, nutrient parameters, major anions, total suspended solids and laboratory physical parameters. Water quality results are compared to the historic ( ) baseline average and 95 th percentile values provided in the Lorax Environmental Baseline Characterization Summary Report provided in Appendix A of Monitoring and Surveillance Plan V211 3 (Baseline Report). Yukon Zinc Corporation March

24 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Table 3 1: Groundwater Monitoring Sites and Dates Sampled Sampling Site March June July August September October November December MW5 1A 22 Jun 6 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep MW5 1B 13 Mar 22 Jun 5 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep 29 Oct MW 5 2A 18 Jun 4 Jul 7 Aug 19 Sep MW 5 2B 18 Jun 4 Jul 7 Aug 19 Sep 15 Oct MW5 3A 27 Jun 6 Jul 9 Aug 2 Sep MW5 3B 27 Jun 6 Jul 9 Aug 2 Sep MW5 4A 21 Jun 6 Jul 9 Aug 16 Sep MW5 4B 21 Jun 6 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep MW5 5A 17 Mar 26 Jun 6 Jul 9 Aug 19 Sep 22 Oct 26 Nov 27 Dec MW5 5B 26 Jun 6 Jul 9 Aug 19 Sep MW 5 6A 17 Mar 25 Jun 5 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep 12 Oct 22 Nov 28 Dec MW 5 6B 17 Mar 25 Jun 5 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep 12 Oct 22 Nov 28 Dec MW5 7B 25 Jun 4 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep MW6 8S 21 Mar 24 Jun 29 Jul 26 Aug 18 Sep 19 Oct 23 Nov 27 Dec MW6 8M 24 Jun 29 Jul 26 Aug 18 Sep 19 Oct 23 Nov 27 Dec MW6 8D 24 Jun 29 Jul 26 Aug 18 Sep 19 Oct 23 Nov 24 Dec MW6 9S 3 Jun 5 Jul 9 Aug 2 Sep 29 Oct 24 Nov MW6 9M 1 Jul 5 Jul 1 Aug 2 Sep MW6 1S 21 Mar 24 Jun 29 Jul 28 Aug 17 Sep 16 Oct MW6 1M 24 Jun 29 Jul 28 Aug 17 Sep 16 Oct 22 Nov MW6 1D 16 Oct MW6 11S 24 Jun 5 Jul 9 Aug 19 Sep MW6 12S 2 Jun 31 Jul 9 Aug 17 Sep 23 Oct 3 Nov 3 Dec MW Mar 22 Jun 4 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep 12 Oct 22 Nov 26 Dec MW Jun 4 Jul 7 Aug 16 Sep 15 Oct Yukon Zinc Corporation March

25 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Groundwater Quality Monitoring Laboratory results for the groundwater samples taken in 211 are compared to baseline average and 95 th percentiles provided in Appendix A of the Baseline Report, except for stations MW6 8M, MW8 13 and MW8 14, which were not installed until 28, hence there was no baseline established for these sites. Appendix B herein provides graphical representations of the water quality results for all groundwater monitoring sites for the following parameters: Conductivity Turbidity Dissolved Aluminum Dissolved Lead Hardness Fluoride Dissolved Arsenic Dissolved Mercury Total Alkalinity Sulphate Dissolved Cadmium Dissolved Molybdenum ph Ammonia Dissolved Chromium Dissolved Nickel Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Nitrate Nitrite Dissolved Copper Dissolved Iron Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Silver Dissolved Zinc Red symbols in the graphs and in the figures below indicate the result was below the analytical detection limit, and is shown as being equal to the detection limit. Also, for occasions when the average and 95 th percentile are equal, only the blue line indicating the average is visible on the graphs. The majority of physical parameters and major anions (conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, ph, TSS, turbidity, fluoride, sulphate, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite) for all sites were within the average provided in the Baseline Report, and were generally below the 95 th percentile value. The 21 ammonia concentrations were higher than the 95 th percentile values, and the 29 and 211 concentrations, due to a change in analysis methodology at the analyzing laboratory that was incorrectly detecting ammonia. This inconsistency was remedied for the 211 sample analysis. Other inconsistencies were evident in the nitrate and nitrite data in September through December 211. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations were much higher than normal in these samples. These higher nitrate and nitrite values are due to interferences with the analytical equipment, due to the samples being analyzed over the standard hold times. The interferences also resulted in laboratory detection limits that were an order of magnitude greater than the limits used previously (i.e.,.2 mg/l vs..2 mg/l). The results for total metals were also generally within the average baseline range. The majority of results were less than the average values, and almost all were less than the 95 th percentile values. ~97% of results for silver and ~95% of the mercury results were below the reportable detection limits, hence these parameters were not graphed. Noticeable exceptions in the groundwater sample data include: MW5 1B & MW5 4A: Ammonia was above the 95 th percentile in for all points in 21 and 211. MW5 3B: Zinc and cadmium were generally above the 95 th percentile values, with slightly increasing concentrations in 21 and 211 compared to 29. Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 2

26 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 MW5 4B: As, Cd, Fe, Ni, Zn, alkalinity, ammonia all above the 95 th percentile values for the majority of results in MW5 5B: As, Ni, & Zn above the 95 th percentile values for the majority of results in MW5 6A: As & Fe above the 95 th percentile values for the majority of results in MW6 8S: Copper and iron were above the 95 th percentile in December 211. Copper was one order of magnitude higher than values achieved in Nickel, zinc and fluoride were above the 95 th percentile for the majority of the points in MW6 9M: Arsenic concentrations were above the 95th percentile throughout Zinc and lead were higher than the 95th percentile in September 211. MW6 1S & MW6 11S: Iron and alkalinity above 95 th percentile for the majority of points in MW6 12S: Iron above 95 th percentile for the majority of points in The results of the groundwater quality are discussed in the below sections by well depth (i.e., alluvial, shallow bedrock or deep bedrock) and location (i.e., Go Creek and Wolverine Creek). Yukon Zinc Corporation March

27 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Wolverine Creek Alluvial Groundwater Wells Alluvial groundwater wells in the Wolverine Creek drainage include wells MW5 3B, MW5 4B and MW5 5B. Concentrations of cadmium, nickel and zinc in wells 3B and 4B demonstrated slightly increasing trends, as shown for cadmium in Figure 3 1. Conversely, molybdenum concentrations were decreasing over the period. All other graphed parameters and those for MW5 5B did not demonstrate any noticeable trends, and were generally below the baseline average value..22 MW5-3B.2 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Cadmium (mg/l) MW5-4B e-4 MW5-5B 2e e-4 Cadmium (mg/l) Figure 3 1: Cadmium Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Alluvial Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-4 1e-4 1e-4 8e-5 6e-5 4e-5 2e-5

28 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Wolverine Creek Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Wells Shallow bedrock groundwater wells in the Wolverine Creek drainage include wells MW5 3A, MW5 4A, MW5 5A, MW6 8S, MW6 9S, MW6 1S, MW6 11S and MW6 12S. Generally the metal concentrations were less than the baseline average concentrations, although iron in wells 1S, 11S and 12S were generally above the 95 th percentile, as shown in Figure 3 2. Well 8S also demonstrated increasing trends in the concentrations of iron, nickel and zinc throughout , similarly to wells 3B and 4B, described above. All other parameter concentrations from well 8S were relatively consistent. Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile 3.5 MW5-3A 6 MW5-4A Iron (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) MW5-5A MW6-8S Iron (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

29 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 1. MW6-9S.4 MW6-1S.8.3 Iron (mg/l).6.4 Iron (mg/l) MW6-11S. 2.5 MW6-12S Iron (mg/l).3.2 Iron (mg/l) Figure 3 2: Iron Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Yukon Zinc Corporation March

30 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Wolverine Creek Deep Bedrock Groundwater Wells Deep bedrock groundwater wells in the Wolverine Creek drainage include wells MW6 8M, MW6 8D, MW6 9M, MW6 1M and MW6 1D. Monitoring well 8M was improperly installed in 26, hence had to be re drilled in 28. Consequently there is no baseline average or 95 th percentile to compare with the results. Overall the results at the deep bedrock wells are comparable to the average results, although some parameters are typically higher than the average (e.g., iron and arsenic) while the others are well below (i.e., nickel and selenium) as shown for nickel in Figure MW6-8M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Nickel (mg/l) MW6-8D.3 MW6-9M.2.25 Nickel (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

31 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6.16 MW6-1M.25 MW6-1D Nickel (mg/l) Figure 3 3: Nickel (mg/l) Nickel Concentrations in Wolverine Creek Deep Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec Tailings Storage Facility Alluvial and Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Wells There are four groundwater monitoring wells downslope of the tailings impoundment: MW5 2A (shallow bedrock), MW5 2B, MW5 7B and MW8 13 (alluvial) and one monitoring well upslope (MW8 14 shallow bedrock). Monitoring wells 13 and 14 weren t installed until 28, hence there is no baseline average or 95 th percentile to compare with the results. Generally the results are similar to the baseline average results, as shown for copper in Figure 3 4. Chromium and selenium concentrations were frequently less than the reportable detection limit (Appendix B). There were no noticeable differences in metal concentrations from the groundwater wells upslope and downslope of the tailings storage facility. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

32 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6.6 MW5-2A.5 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Copper (mg/l) MW5-2B..5 MW5-7B.6.4 Copper (mg/l).4 Copper (mg/l) MW MW Copper (mg/l) Figure 3 4: Copper Concentrations in Groundwater Stations near Tailings Storage Facility, Jan 29 Dec 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Copper (mg/l)

33 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Go Creek Shallow Bedrock and Alluvial Groundwater Wells Concentrations in the groundwater from the shallow bedrock (MW5 1A and MW5 6A) and alluvial (MW5 1B and MW5 6B) groundwater wells in the Go Creek drainage demonstrated trends that were generally similar to baseline average concentrations. MW5 6A arsenic and iron concentrations were almost all higher than the baseline 95 th percentile values, as shown for arsenic in Figure 3 5. Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile.25 MW5-1A.12 MW5-1B.2.1 Arsenic (mg/l).15.1 Arsenic (mg/l) MW5-6A MW5-6B Arsenic (mg/l) Figure 3 5: Arsenic Concentrations in Go Creek Alluvial and Shallow Bedrock Groundwater Stations, Jan 29 Dec 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Arsenic (mg/l)

34 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Groundwater Water Levels and Temperatures Figure 3 6 provides graphical representations of the water levels and water temperatures in the various groundwater wells. The majority of the wells commenced logging in September 26; although wells MW5 4A and MW5 4B were decommissioned during construction in 28, and replaced in the same location in 29. These wells are not calibrated to reflect depth above sea level (asl), but are instead recording the depth of the water below the ground. Loggers are not installed in monitoring wells MW5 6A, MW5 6B and MW5 7B. The logger was removed from well MW8 14 in September 211, as the well was decommissioned to allow for construction of the waste rock pad; hence data up to this date is presented below. There are also no loggers in wells MW5 2A, MW5 2B, MW5 1A and MW5 9M as they are artesian wells, and have a consistent water level of m above ground level. Well MW6 9S is only updated to August 211, as the logger malfunctioned and the data from the remainder of 211 was unrecoverable. The short lived spike lines in the graphs correspond to sampling periods, when the water levels decrease drastically and the temperatures potentially increase. In general, the water levels increase each year around May/June, and decrease to the lowest seasonal levels in March/April. The water temperatures are highest around July/August, and lowest around December/January. Annual water levels in the various monitoring wells have remained relatively constant over the monitoring period. Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 1B Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 3A Level (m) Temperature ( C) Level (m) Temperature ( C) Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 3B Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 4A Level (m) Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan Temperature ( C) Sep 29 Nov 29 Jan 21 Mar 21 May 21 Jul 21 Sep 21 Nov 21 Jan 211 Mar 211 May 211 Jul 211 Sep 211 Nov 211 Jan 212 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Level (m) Temperature ( C)

35 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 4. Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 4B Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 5A Level (m) Level (m) Level (m) Aug 29 Oct Jan Jul 21 Dec 29 Feb 21 Apr 21 Jun 21 Aug 21 Oct 21 Dec 21 Feb 211 Apr 211 Jun 211 Aug 211 Oct 211 Dec 211 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW5 5B Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 8M Sep 21 Nov 21 Jan 211 Mar 211 May 211 Jul 211 Sep 211 Nov 211 Jan Temperature ( C) Temperature ( C) Temperature ( C) Level (m) Level (m) Level (m) Jan Jan Jan 26 Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 8S Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 8D Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan Temperature ( C) Temperature ( C) Temperature ( C) Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 3

36 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 9S Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 1S Level (m) Jan Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 1M Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jan Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 1D Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jan Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 11S Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jan Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW6 12S Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan 212 Jul 212 Jan Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jan 26 Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Jul 28 Jan 29 Jul 29 Jan 21 Jul 21 Jan 211 Jul 211 Jan Temperature ( C) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

37 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW8 13 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW Level (m) Jun 21 Aug 21 Oct 21 Dec 21 Feb 211 Apr 211 Jun 211 Aug 211 Oct 211 Dec 211 Feb 212 Apr 212 Figure 3 6: 3.4 Piezometer Monitoring Temperature ( C) Level (m) Jun 21 Jul 21 Aug 21 Sep 21 Oct 21 Nov 21 Dec 21 Jan 211 Feb 211 Mar 211 Apr 211 May 211 Jun 211 Jul 211 Aug 211 Sep 211 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Water Level and Temperature Temperature ( C) Four vibrating wire piezometers are installed at two locations (PZA and PZB) above the underground mine. The piezometers measure the water table above the mine and results reveal the effect of underground mining on the water table. Both locations have one shallow and one deep piezometer, and the results for 25 to 211 are provided in Figure 3 7. There is no precipitation data prior to the installation of the weather station in late 27. Battery failure of the piezometers in 29 resulted in gaps in the data. Water level increases are seen shortly after summer rain events, even in the deep well installations. The average elevations for the annual monitoring periods are presented in Figure 3 8. The shallow PZA and PZB wells showed a slight decrease in average elevation in 211 compared to previous years. However, piezometer PZA Deep showed a marked decrease from 21 (i.e., 31 m lower), which may be attributed to an intersection of the mining operations with the well, as noted by the mining personnel. While the PZB Deep well decreased markedly in 21 (down 49 m from 29), the elevations in 211 were relatively the same, and were not as affected by precipitation as the shallow wells. Overall the underground development (started in September 29) seems to have had a significant overall effect on the lower (or deep) aquifers, with little to no effect on the upper (or shallow) aquifers. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

38 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Elevation (masl) Figure 3 7: Rain, mm PZA Shallow PZA Deep PZB Shallow PZB Deep Jan-5 May-5 Sep-5 Jan-6 May-6 Sep-6 Jan-7 May-7 Sep-7 Jan-8 May-8 Sep-8 May-9 Sep Pieziometric and Precipitation Data Precipitation (mm) Elevation (m asl) Average Elevations Precipitation PZA Shallow PZA Deep PZB Shallow PZB Deep Precipitation (mm) Figure 3 8: Average Pieziometric Elevation Data Yukon Zinc Corporation March

39 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 4 Aquatic Life and Sediment Monitoring requirements for stream periphyton, benthic invertebrates, water and sediment quality are outlined in the Environmental Effects Monitoring First Study Design, provided in V211 3 of the Monitoring and Surveillance Plan. Periphyton, benthos, water and sediment quality were all sampled in September 211 at stations W12, W16 (exposure sites), W13 and W76 (reference sites). Results of these analyses were provided to Environment Canada in the EEM First Interpretive Report, as required by the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations on December 5, 211, provided in Appendix C. Appendices have been omitted from the First Interpretive Report, but are available upon request. While the First Interpretive Report summarized the benthic community and water quality results, a comparison was not made to previous results, nor was periphyton or sediment quality results presented. Hence the following sections summarize the 211 periphyton, benthos and sediment quality results compared to 25, 27 and 21 results. 4.1 Sediment Quality Sediment quality samples were analyzed for total metals and the results are summarized in Table 4 1. They are compared to the average and 95 th percentile values presented in the Baseline Report. Bold values indicate a parameter value was greater than the average baseline value for that parameter. In general, the values achieved in 211 were within the bounds of the average and 95 th values summarized in the Baseline Report, with the majority of parameters having values less than the average baseline value. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

40 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Table 4 1: 211 Sediment Quality Results Sample ID Station W12 Station W13 A B C D E A B C D E Sample Date AVG 95th Percentile 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 AVG 95th Percentile 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 5 Sep 11 Physical Properties Soluble (2:1) ph Total Metals by ICPMS (mg/kg) Total Aluminum (Al) Total Antimony (Sb) Total Arsenic (As) Total Barium (Ba) Total Beryllium (Be) <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4.3 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 Total Bismuth (Bi) < Total Cadmium (Cd) Total Calcium (Ca) Total Chromium (Cr) Total Cobalt (Co) Total Copper (Cu) Total Iron (Fe) Total Lead (Pb) Total Magnesium (Mg) Total Manganese (Mn) Total Mercury (Hg).5.5 <.5 <.5 <.5.32 <.5.5 <.5 <.5 < Total Molybdenum (Mo) Total Nickel (Ni) Total Phosphorus (P) Total Potassium (K) Total Selenium (Se) Total Silver (Ag) Total Sodium (Na) 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Strontium (Sr) Total Thallium (Tl) <.5 < < Total Tin (Sn) Total Titanium (Ti) Total Vanadium (V) Total Zinc (Zn) Total Zirconium (Zr) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

41 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Sample ID Station W16 Station W76 A B C D E A B C D E Sample Date AVG 95th Percentile 2 Sep 11 2 Sep 11 2 Sep 11 2 Sep 11 2 Sep 11 3 Sep 11 3 Sep 11 3 Sep 11 3 Sep 11 3 Sep 11 Physical Properties Soluble (2:1) ph Total Metals by ICPMS (mg/kg) Total Aluminum (Al) Total Antimony (Sb) Total Arsenic (As) Total Barium (Ba) Total Beryllium (Be).2.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 Total Bismuth (Bi) <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 < Total Cadmium (Cd) Total Calcium (Ca) Total Chromium (Cr) Total Cobalt (Co) Total Copper (Cu) Total Iron (Fe) Total Lead (Pb) Total Magnesium (Mg) Total Manganese (Mn) Total Mercury (Hg).5.6 <.5 <.5 <.5 < Total Molybdenum (Mo) Total Nickel (Ni) Total Phosphorus (P) Total Potassium (K) Total Selenium (Se) < < Total Silver (Ag) Total Sodium (Na) 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total Strontium (Sr) Total Thallium (Tl).6.8 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 < Total Tin (Sn) Total Titanium (Ti) Total Vanadium (V) Total Zinc (Zn) Total Zirconium (Zr) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

42 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Periphyton 211 periphyton samples were analyzed for taxonomic composition and for Chlorophyll a as a measure of biomass. The 211 sample analysis for taxonomic composition was conducted by Stantec Inc. (who also analyzed the benthic invertebrates in 25, 27 and 21) and the results are summarized in Table 4 2. Table 4 2: Periphyton Taxonomic Composition Station W12 W13 Taxonomic composition Samples contained varying amounts of moss, filaments, silt, and detritus. One replicate contained visible filamentous clumps, with the red alga Audouinella violacea comprising 5% of the periphyton. The filamentous green alga Microspora cf. amoena was common (5 to 1% abundance) and the blue green algae Chamaesiphon cf. incrustans and Lyngbya sp. Comprised 5% or 1% in two samples. Diatoms comprised 35% to 85% of the periphyton, with Hannaea arcus and Synedra ulna predominant in all three samples, and Didymosphenia geminate predominant in one sample. A total of 26 taxa was identified in the three samples. Samples collected in 211 contained many of the species identified in previous years, though they differed in amounts of periphyton (very little in 25; more in 27, 21 and 211). Samples collected in 27, 21 and 211 had higher proportions of diatoms, and samples collected in 25 had higher proportions of blue green algae. Site W13 is situated on Pup Creek upstream of the confluence with Dollar Creek. It was sampled for the first time in 21. Samples collected in 211 contained large amounts of moss along with silt, detritus and algae. Diatoms comprised 95 to 99% of the periphyton, with Diatoma vulgare and Fragilaria construens predominant. Common taxa included Cymbella sp., Diatoma hiemale var. mesodon and Hannaea arcus. A total of 23 taxa was identified in the three samples. Predominance of moss and periphyton composition were similar in 21 and 211. W16 Site W16 is situated on Go Creek upstream of Hawkowl Creek, and was not sampled in 21. Appearance of the three replicates varied: one replicate contained some silty material, another contained gelatinous filamentous material and the third contained larger amounts of moss and sand, with little algal material. The first sample contained 5% blue green alga (a mat forming filamentous form identified as Calothrix or Gloeotrichia), 1% red alga Audouinella violacea, 5% chrysophyte Hydrurus foetidus and 35% diatoms (Hannaea arcus and Cymbella cf. Affinis predominant and Diatoma hiemale var. mesodon and Meridion circulare common). The second sample contained 75% Hydrurus foetidus, 1% Calothrix/Gloeotrichia and 15% diatoms (Hannaea arcus and Cymbella cf. affinis predominant and Diatoma hiemale var. mesodon common). The third sample contained 25% filamenous green alga Microspora cf. amoena and 75% diatoms (Meridion circulare predominant, Cymbella cf. affinis and Frustulia rhomboides common). A total of 2 taxa was identified in all three samples. Samples were collected from W81, Go Creek downstream of Hawkowl Creek, in 21. The communities also consisted of a mix of diatoms, blue green algae, golden algae, green algae and red algae, with common and predominant species generally similar to those reported for Yukon Zinc Corporation March

43 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Station W76 Taxonomic composition W16 in 211. Site W76 is located on Bunker Creek, upstream of the road crossing. Although this site was not sampled in the past, site W73, at the road crossing, was sampled in 21. The samples collected in 211 contained large amounts of moss. Diatoms comprised more than 99% of the periphyton. Synedra ulna was the predominant diatom species, with Cymbella spp., Hannaea arcus, Diatoma vulgare and Fragilaria construens common in all three samples and Didymosphenia geminate common in one sample. A total of 26 taxa was reported in the three replicates. The samples collected from W73 in 21 also contained large amounts of moss, with some diatoms. There were similarities in the periphyton community in both years (Cymbella spp. and Diatoma vulgare common), although samples collected in 21 had higher abundance of Achnanthes spp. than did those collected in 211. Biomass results (as Chlorophyll a), including average values and standard deviation, and the total number of taxa, are summarized in Table 4 3. For comparison, the 25, 27 and 21 data is also provided in Table 4 3. The 211 results were comparable to the 25, 27 and 21 results, although the 211 results for W12 and W13 were greater than the 25, 27 and 21 results. The biomass results for all sites with more than two sampling dates (except W76, which was only sampled in 211) in 25, 27, 21 or 211 are also presented in Figure 4 1. Table 4 3: Stream Go Pup Go Periphyton (as Chlorophyll a) 211 Results Station W12 Year Average (n=3) Chlorophyll a (µg/cm 2 ) Standard Deviation # Taxa W W Bunker W Yukon Zinc Corporation March

44 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Chlorophyll a ( g/cm 2 ) W9 W12 W13 W14 W16 W31 W73 W76 Station Figure 4 1: Periphyton Biomass (±1 Standard Deviation) at Stations Sampled in 25, 27, 21 & Benthic Invertebrates 211 benthic invertebrate samples were analyzed by Cordillera Consulting and community characteristic statistics are presented in Table 4 4. For comparison, the 25, 27 and 21 results have also been included. The EEM First Study Design requires that the Indices (Simpson s Diversity and Simpson s Evenness) be calculated on a family level; however, the ones presented below have been calculated based on the total taxonomy in order to be consistent with the Baseline Report. The 211 results were generally comparable to the 25, 27 and 21 results, although the average densities in 21 at stations W12 and W13 were an order of magnitude greater than those from other years. Comparison of density (the number of invertebrates per square meter) among sites sampled in 25, 27, 21 and 211 is shown in Figure 4 2. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

45 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Table 4 4: Community Characteristic Statistics (Averages) from Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomy Data Stream Station Year Avg. Density (#/m 2 ) Richness 1 # EPT Taxa 2 Simpson s Diversity Index Simpson s Evenness Index Go Pup W , , , , W , , , W16 Go 27 15, , Bunker W , : Total number of taxa from the 3 replicates at each station 2: Total number of taxa of the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera at each station Total Density (#/m 2 ) W1 W9 W11 W12 W13 W14 W16 W17 W31 W72 W73 W75 W76 W8 W81 Figure 4 2: Station Total Benthic Invertebrate Density (±1 Standard Deviation) at Stations Sampled in 25, 27, 21 and 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 4

46 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 5 Weather Monitoring Program Weather monitoring at the Wolverine Mine consists of weather data, collected from an on site weather station, and snow pack measurements, and the 211 results of this monitoring program are summarized below. 5.1 Weather Station Data Weather station data is collected from a HOBO Weather Station installed at the south end of the airstrip. Data collected from the weather station includes: Temperature; Pressure; Precipitation; Radiation in and out; Wind speed and direction; and Relative humidity. 211 was a much more wet and cold year than 21 with mm of rain falling in 211 compared to mm in 21. Also, in 211 maximum temperatures were below freezing January through April, and October through December, whereas in 21 maximum temperatures were above freezing in April and October. Consequently, annual evaporation was also much lower in 211 compared to 21; 32.9 mm and mm, respectively. Overall, as shown in Figure 5 1, temperature and precipitation have been similar at the Wolverine Mine since consistent recording started in 27. The daily average temperatures are presented in Figure 5 1. The mean monthly temperature for 211 was 4. C. Mean monthly temperatures were below freezing from January through April and October through December, and above freezing May through September. The minimum recorded temperature was 39.6 C and the maximum recorded temperature was 22.9 C. The monthly precipitation as rain for 211 is presented in Figure 5 1. The HOBO weather station does not record precipitation that falls as snow, consequently only precipitation as rain is provided in Figure 5 1. In 211, June was the wettest month with 91.8 mm and January was the driest month with.2 mm recorded. The annual cumulative precipitation recorded as rain was mm. Evaporation figures were estimated from the Penmann Combination Equation, and the monthly and annual values are shown in Figure 5 2. The total evaporation in 211 was 32.9 mm, with July (59.5 mm) having the highest evaporation within a month for 211. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

47 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Precipitation (mm) Jan 27 Apr 27 Jul 27 Oct 27 Jan 28 Apr 28 Jul 28 Oct 28 Jan 29 Apr 29 Jul 29 Oct 29 Jan 21 Apr 21 Jul 21 Oct 21 Jan 211 Apr 211 Jul 211 Oct 211 Jan 212 Figure 5 1: Wolverine Mine Daily Precipitation and Average Daily Temperature Evaporation (mm/month) Avg Daily Temp Daily Rain (mm) Average Daily Temperature ( C) Figure 5 2: 211 Monthly Evaporation Yukon Zinc Corporation March

48 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Snow Water Equivalent Snow pack measurements were conducted in March and April 211 and resulted in an average snowwater equivalent of 25 mm with a density of 23%. In comparison, in 21 the snow water equivalent was 199 mm with a density of 22.2%, very similar to the 211 results. A summary of the data achieved during the late winter sampling is summarized in Table 5 1 for five sampling sites at various locations around the project location. Table 5 1: Snow Pack Measurements March and April 211 Station Airstrip Weather Station Old 26.1 Weather Station km 17.5 Weather Station NW from MW6 9 GW wells Sampling Date 23 Mar Mar Mar Mar 11 Total Average Total Average Total Average Total Average Snow Depth (cm) Core Length (cm) Core Length by Snow (%) Depth Weight Tube b/f sampling (g) Weight Tube & Core (g) SWE (mm) Density (%) Airstrip km 17.5 Road above Weather Weather Tailings Station Station Station Sampling Date 25 Apr Apr Apr 11 All Sites March & April 211 Total Average Total Average Total Average Average Snow Depth (cm) Core Length (cm) Core Length by Snow Depth Weight Tube b/f sampling Weight Tube & Core (%) (g) (g) SWE (mm) Density (%) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

49 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 6 Tailings Storage Facility Monitoring Monitoring of the tailings storage facility is carried out during operations according to the Tailings Facility Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manual V211 1 (approved August 12, 21). Monitoring requirements for the tailings facility are summarized in Table 6 1. Routine inspections were carried out weekly and monthly to summarize the flows in and out of the facility. The forms are kept on site for reference. Topography and bathymetry were not measured in 211, neither was an event driven inspection (as there were no significant events), or a comprehensive review. Instrumentation (e.g., piezometers and inclinometers casing) was installed in the dam in September 21. Piezometers at the tailings dam are downloaded monthly, and produce potentiometric measurements of the water in the dam and dam foundation. The results are compared to yellow and red triggers (provided by dam design engineers Klohn Crippen Berger) to ensure the water levels are not nearing elevations where they may cause issues in dam stability. The results of the 211 downloads are provided in Figure 6 1. Inclinometers were monitored in June, July and September 211. Results indicate strong consistency between readings, which is important for the identification of potential movement in the dam. Table 6 1: Surveillance Requirements for the Tailings Storage Facility Surveillance Routine Inspection Dam and Liner Diversion ditches Seepage collection system Spillways Pipelines Annual Inspection Event Driven Inspection Comprehensive Review Tailings Pond Monitoring Inflows, Outflows, Condition Topography Bathymetry Instrumentation Frequency Min. Weekly Min. Weekly Min. Weekly Min. Weekly Min. Weekly Annually Following unusual event Every 7 years & prior to decommissioning Monthly Annually Annually Monthly Yukon Zinc Corporation March

50 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML PZ 1 1 PZ 1 1F Yellow Trigger Red Trigger Elevation (masl) Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec PZ 1 2 PZ 1 2F PZ 1 2D Yellow Trigger Red Trigger 13 Elevation (masl) Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Yukon Zinc Corporation March

51 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML PZ 1 3 PZ 1 3F PZ 1 3D Yellow Trigger Red Trigger Elevation (masl) Jan 11 Feb 11Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec PZ 1 4 PZ 1 4F PZ 1 4D Yellow trigger Red trigger Elevation (masl) Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Figure 6 1: Tailings Facility 211 Piezometer Results Yukon Zinc Corporation March

52 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 7 Engineering Inspections Three engineering inspections occurred in 211 and subsequent reports were submitted to EMR on September 2, 211. The full reports are provided on line through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources. The inspections and respective reports are as follows: Swallow Services Ltd. conducted an inspection of the underground mine July 21 29, 211; EBA Engineering Consultants conducted an inspection of the structures at and around the industrial complex on July 19 2, 211; and Klohn Crippen Berger conducted an inspection of the tailings storage facility on July 19, 211. The results of these inspections and the actions taken to date by YZC are summarized in the Wolverine Mine QML Annual Report. 8 Progressive Reclamation Effectiveness Monitoring Program No progressive reclamation effectiveness monitoring has been conducted in 211 as the program is still in development. The program will be submitted as an addendum to the Reclamation and Closure Plan V212 4 once complete. 9 Biopass System Bench scale test work for the bio pass system was completed in 21, with the data analysis on going throughout 211. While the 21 bench scale work was successfully able to remove selenium, sulphate, cadmium and zinc from a contaminated influent, further bench scale work is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system in removing iron, molybdenum, aluminum and arsenic. The additional bench scale work is required prior to completing the design of the field test. The additional bench scale work is proposed to occur in 213, with the design of the field test to be completed by Geochemical Testwork This section summarizes testwork conducted for the purposes of establishing the leachate quantities and time to acidification for waste rock, ore, paste backfill and tailings materials via humidity cell testwork (Section 1.1) as well as geochemical characterization conducted for the purposes of evaluating the acid potential of construction material (Section 1.2). 1.1 Humidity Cell Tests A report summarizing the data for 211 for the tailings humidity cells compiled by Marsland Environmental Associates is provided in Appendix D, and a report summarizing the waste rock and ore humidity cells by AMEC Earth and Environmental in Appendix E. A summary of the humidity cells, and their dates commenced and decommissioned (if applicable), as well as the number of weeks the cells have been in operation for as of the end of 211, is provided in Table 1 1. Based on the recommendation made in the Marsland report (Appendix D), it was proposed in the last update to the Monitoring and Surveillance Plan V211 3 that the tailings humidity cells be decommissioned. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

53 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Approval for that plan was received December 1, 211, and the cells were decommissioned February 3, 212. Table 1 1: 211 Humidity Cell Composition, Date of Commencement and Decommissioning, and Weeks in Operation Humidity Composition Date of Date of Weeks in HC1 Rhyolite/rhyolite fragmental 22 Dec 5 19 Feb HC2 Iron formation 22 Dec 5 19 Feb HC3 Rhyolite/rhyolite fragmental 22 Dec 5 19 Feb HC4 Rhyolite/rhyolite fragmental 22 Dec 5 Operating 314 HC5 Calcite pyrite exhalite 22 Dec 5 19 Feb HC6 Calcite pyrite exhalite 22 Dec 5 Operating 228 HC7 Carbonaceous argillite 22 Dec 5 Operating 228 HC8 Carbonaceous argillite 22 Dec 5 19 Feb HC9 Non carbonaceous argillite 12 Jan 6 19 Feb HC1 Non carbonaceous argillite 12 Jan 6 Operating 314 HC11 Iron formation 12 Jan 6 19 Feb HC12 Rhyolite/argillite 12 Jan 6 19 Feb HC13 Rhyolite/argillite 12 Jan 6 19 Feb HC14 Ore 16 Feb 6 19 Feb HC15 Ore 16 Feb 6 19 Feb HC16 Ore 16 Feb 6 19 Feb HC17 DMS float 23 Feb 6 17 Feb HC18 DMS float 23 Feb 6 17 Feb HC19 DMS float 23 Feb 6 17 Feb HC2 NP 2 depleted ore 23 May 6 17 Feb HC21 NP depleted ore 23 May 6 Operating 314 HC22 NP depleted ore 23 May 6 17 Feb T1 Paste backfill 23 May 6 Operating 314 T2 Paste backfill 23 May 6 Operating 314 LD Tailings Lynx zone diluted ore 22 Jul 5 3 Oct 6 63 WD Tailings Wolverine i zone diluted 22 Jul 5 3 Oct 6 63 OA Tailings Overall ore i composite 6 Jun 5 3 Feb OD Tailings Overall diluted ore i 22 Jul 5 3 Feb Geochemical Characterization As site construction was more or less completed by 211 there were no geochemical characterization samples taken in 211. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

54 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 11 Underground Mine Monitoring Underground mine monitoring in 211 consisted of mostly water quality sampling and in situ geochemical test pads, as paste backfilling did not commence until November 211. Wall wash stations and paste leachate monitoring stations are to be established in 212, and the results presented in the 212 Annual Report. The results of the water quality sampling and in situ geochemical test pads are summarized below Underground Water Quality Sampling Water quality samples were collected from the end of the pipeline that discharged underground effluent into settling Sump #2. Underground mine effluent is subsequently pumped to the tailings storage facility for storage. The results are presented graphically below for parameters limited by Type A Water Use Licence QZ4 65 (Yukon Water Board, 27), and are compared to the maximum allowable discharge concentrations, as outlined in Part C of Licence QZ results are also included for comparison. Red symbols in the graphs represent concentrations that were less than the laboratory reportable detection limits, and were taken to be equal to the detection limit in the graphs. The full water quality results for the underground water quality is presented in the Type B Water Use Licence QZ Annual Report. Water quality in the underground effluent was typically higher than Type A Water Use Licence QZ4 65 discharge limits for total suspended solids, Al, Sb, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, Se, and Zn as well as nitrite during the initial blasting programs in early Parameter Concentration QZ4-65 Max Concentration ph 9 8 Aluminum (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Antimony (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Arsenic (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11

55 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Yukon Zinc Corporation March Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Selenium (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Cadmium (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Iron (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Molybdenum (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Silver (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Lead (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Nickel (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Copper (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Mercury (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Sulphate (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Zinc (mg/l)

56 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML Nitrate (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec Paste Leachate Monitoring Nitrite (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Paste backfilling of the underground mine commenced in November 211, but monitoring will not commence until the paste process has reached steady state in Wash Stations Wall washing techniques measure unit area geochemical reaction rates and concentrations. Wall washing is to be performed quarterly on selected walls within the mine that represent dominant rock types and paste backfilled stopes. Wall washing was not conducted in 211, but stations will be established in 212, and monitoring will be conducted quarterly In situ Geochemical Test Pads The geochemical test pads (lysimeters) installed at the Wolverine Mine received precipitation from the environment and the leachate collects in 2L buckets placed below the pads. There are five pads constructed at the Wolverine Mine: two containing 1% ore (lysimeters A & B); two containing 5% ore and 5% waste rock (lysimeters C & D); and one control cell, which collects only rainwater (lysimeter E). Water quality samples were taken in summer/fall 211 and the results are summarized graphically below. Full water quality results are available upon request. The water chemistry in the runoff from the lysimeters with 1% ore and 5% ore and waste rock are typified by high metal concentrations, most notably for Sb, Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Sr, Tl and Zn, for which the concentrations are at least one order of magnitude greater than the concentrations in the runoff from the control cell. Cd, Se and Zn concentrations in the runoff from the ore containing cells are three orders of magnitude greater than the control cell, as shown in the figures below. Also, the leachate selenium and zinc concentrations from the cells containing 1% ore were one order of magnitude greater than the leachate from the cells with 5% ore and 5% waste. The figures below have the Type A Water Use Licence QZ4 65 discharge limit shown to allow comparison between cells. Red data points indicate that the result was below the reportable detection limit, and is shown as equal to the limit in the graph. The graphs for the other parameters limited by Licence QZ4 65 are provided in Appendix F, and the full water quality results are available upon request. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

57 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Test Pad.35 Cadmium Selenium Zinc A Cadmium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) B Cadmium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) C Cadmium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Yukon Zinc Corporation March

58 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Test Pad.5 Cadmium Selenium Zinc.6 14 D E Cadmium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Summary Selenium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) This report summarized the results of monitoring and surveillance conduced as per Monitoring and Surveillance Plan V211 2 for the January December 211 period. The results indicate that there is no change in environmental performance of the undertaking evident during the monitoring period. 13 Works Cited Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, SOR/ (26). Yukon Water Board. (27, October 4). Type A Water Use Licence QZ4 65. Whitehorse, YT, Canada. Yukon Zinc Corporation March

59 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Appendix A: Surface Water Quality Graphs Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212

60 L1 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Lead (mg/l) L1 Cadmium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l)

61 L1 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrate plus Nitrite (mg/l)

62 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) T1 Average 95 th Percentile T1

63 T1 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU)

64 W1 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) W1 Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l)

65 W1 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

66 W8 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) W8 Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) W8 W8 Average W8 95 % Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Result Average 95 Percentile Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l)

67 W8 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

68 W9 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) W9 Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l)

69 W9 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

70 W12 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) W12 Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Copper (mg/l)

71 W12 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

72 W14 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 4e-4 5e-4 6e-4 Chromium (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Cadmium (mg/l) W14

73 W14 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Jan-21 Mar-21 May-21 Jul-21 Sep-21 Nov-21 Jan-211 Mar-211 May-211 Jul-211 Sep-211 Nov-211 Jan-212 ph Sulphate (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

74 W15 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l). 5.e-6 1.e-5 1.5e-5 2.e-5 2.5e-5 3.e-5 3.5e-5 Copper (mg/l) W15 Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 4e-4 5e-4 6e-4 Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Chromium (mg/l)

75 W15 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

76 W16 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) W16 Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 4e-4 5e-4 6e-4 Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l)

77 W16 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

78 W21 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) W21 Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Chromium (mg/l)

79 W21 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

80 W22 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) W22

81 W22 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

82 W31 Average 95 th Percentile Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Selenium (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Arsenic (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 7e-5 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Copper (mg/l) W31 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Iron (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Molybdenum (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Nickel (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Zinc (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Aluminum (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Lead (mg/l) 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 4e-4 5e-4 6e-4 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Chromium (mg/l)

83 W31 Average 95 th Percentile Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Hardness (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 ph Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Sulphate (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Conductivity (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Turbidity (NTU) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Fluoride (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Nitrate (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Nitrite (mg/l)

84 W4 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 4e-4 5e-4 6e-4 Chromium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) W4

85 W4 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

86 W71 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) W71

87 W71 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

88 Selenium (mg/l) W72 Average 95 th Percentile Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) W72 Lead (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l)

89 W72 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

90 W73 Average 95 th Percentile Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) W73 Lead (mg/l) 5e-5 1e-4 1e-4 2e-4 3e-4 3e-4 Chromium (mg/l)

91 W73 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

92 Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) W8 Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) W8 Average 95 th Percentile

93 W8 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

94 Copper (mg/l) W81 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 Feb-1 Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l). 2.e-5 4.e-5 6.e-5 8.e-5 1.e-4 1.2e-4 1.4e-4 1.6e-4 Nickel (mg/l) W81 Average 95 th Percentile

95 W81 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

96 W82 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) W82 Average 95 th Percentile W82

97 W82 Average 95 th Percentile Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

98 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l). 5.e-5 1.e-4 1.5e-4 2.e-4 2.5e-4 3.e-4 3.5e-4 Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) W85 Average 95 th Percentile W85

99 W85 Average 95 th Percentile Conductivity (mg/l) Hardness (mg/l) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Jan--13 Mar--13 May Fluoride (mg/l).3.2 Sulphate (mg/l) 6 4 Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l)

100 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Appendix B: Groundwater Quality Graphs Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212

101 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4.e-6 6.e-6 8.e-6 1.e-5 1.2e-5 1.4e-5 1.6e-5 1.8e-5 2.e-5 2.2e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-1A MW5-1A

102 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-1A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

103 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4.e-6 6.e-6 8.e-6 1.e-5 1.2e-5 1.4e-5 1.6e-5 1.8e-5 2.e-5 2.2e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-1B MW5-1B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

104 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-1B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

105 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4.e-6 5.e-6 6.e-6 7.e-6 8.e-6 9.e-6 1.e-5 1.1e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-2A MW5-2A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

106 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-2A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

107 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l). 5.e-6 1.e-5 1.5e-5 2.e-5 2.5e-5 3.e-5 3.5e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-2B MW5-2B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

108 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-2B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

109 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-3A MW5-3A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

110 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-3A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

111 Cadmium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) MW5-3B Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-3B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

112 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-3B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

113 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-4A MW5-4A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

114 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-4A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

115 Cadmium (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) MW5-4B Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-4B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

116 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-4B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

117 MW5-5A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile 2.5e e-4 Aluminum (mg/l) Selenium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1.5e-4 1.e-4 5.e MW5-5A L1 Date Sampled vs Lead ( Date Sampled vs Lead ( MW5-5A Average MW5-5A 95 %

118 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-5A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

119 Cadmium (mg/l) 2e-5 4e-5 6e-5 8e-5 1e-4 1e-4 1e-4 2e-4 2e-4 2e-4 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) MW5-5B Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-5B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

120 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-5B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

121 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 7e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-6A MW5-6A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

122 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-6A Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

123 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 7e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW5-6B MW5-6B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

124 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-6B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

125 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 MW5-7B MW5-7B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

126 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW5-7B Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

127 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) L1 MW6-8S Average MW6-8S 95 % Cadmium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-8S MW6-8S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

128 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-8S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

129 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4e-6 5e-6 6e-6 7e-6 8e-6 9e-6 1e-5 MW6-8M MW6-8M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

130 MW6-8M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile Conductivity (mg/l) Hardness (mg/l) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) ph Fluoride (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Turbidity (NTU) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l).15.1 Nitrite (mg/l)

131 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l). 2.e-5 4.e-5 6.e-5 8.e-5 1.e-4 1.2e-4 1.4e-4 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-8D MW6-8D Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

132 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-8D Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

133 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-9S MW6-9S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

134 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-9S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

135 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-9M MW6-9M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

136 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-9M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

137 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 1e-5 2e-5 3e-5 4e-5 5e-5 6e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-1S MW6-1S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

138 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-1S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

139 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4.e-6 6.e-6 8.e-6 1.e-5 1.2e-5 1.4e-5 1.6e-5 1.8e-5 2.e-5 2.2e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-1M MW6-1M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

140 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Dec-11 Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-1M Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

141 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) 4.e-6 6.e-6 8.e-6 1.e-5 1.2e-5 1.4e-5 1.6e-5 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-1D MW6-1D Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

142 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 1-Aug Dec-1 1-Feb Jun-11 1-Aug Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-1D Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

143 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) L1 Date Sampled vs Lead ( MW6-11S Average MW6-11S 95 % Cadmium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-11S MW6-11S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

144 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Jun-1 1-Aug Dec-1 1-Feb Jun-11 1-Aug Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-11S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

145 Selenium (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l). 2.e-5 4.e-5 6.e-5 8.e-5 1.e-4 1.2e-4 1.4e-4 Arsenic (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) MW6-12S MW6-12S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

146 Hardness (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) ph Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) MW6-12S Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

147 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l) Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) MW6-13 MW8-13 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

148 Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) MW6-13 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

149 Selenium (mg/l) Arsenic (mg/l) Cadmium (mg/l). 2.e-6 4.e-6 6.e-6 8.e-6 1.e-5 1.2e-5 Chromium (mg/l) Iron (mg/l) Molybdenum (mg/l) Zinc (mg/l) Aluminum (mg/l) Lead (mg/l) 5e-6 1e-5 2e-5 2e-5 3e-5 3e-5 Nickel (mg/l) Copper (mg/l) MW6-14 MW8-14 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

150 Hardness (mg/l) ph Sulphate (mg/l) Conductivity (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) Total Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO 3 units) Fluoride (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l) Nitrate (mg/l) Nitrite (mg/l) Jun-1 Aug-1 Dec-1 Feb-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Turbidity (NTU) MW6-14 Parameter Concentration Baseline Average Baseline 95 Percentile

151 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Appendix C: Environmental Effects Monitoring First Interpretive Report December 5, 211 Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212

152 Wolverine Mine Metal Mining Effluent Regulations Environmental Effects Monitoring First Interpretive Report Prepared for: Yukon Zinc Corporation Suite Howe Street Vancouver, BC, V6C 2B3 Prepared by: Lorax Environmental Services Ltd Burrard St. Vancouver, BC, V6J 3H9 Submitted to: Environment Canada Pacific and Yukon Region Alaska Highway Whitehorse, YT, Y1A 5B7 December 5, 211

153 Executive Summary Yukon Zinc Corporation s (YZC) Wolverine Mine, located in south-eastern Yukon, produces copper, lead, and zinc concentrates. On June 3, 29 the Wolverine Mine became subject to section 7 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). In October 29, the mine completed construction of a fully lined tailings impoundment. Since that time, all contact water capable of containing deleterious substances has been directed to the tailings impoundment. As such, no effluent discharges to the receiving environment have occurred at the Wolverine Mine since late October 29. The tailings pond is expected to continue filling until 213, at which time the mine will discharge treated effluent to Go Creek from a point near the tailings facility. YZC submitted an Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) first study design in June 21. The study design included monitoring of stream habitat, water quality, and benthic invertebrates. Fish population studies were not included in the first study design because the mine has not been discharging effluent. Field work to complete the studies described in the first study design was completed in early September 211. This first interpretive report presents the results and conclusions from the EEM first study. Two sites were monitored in Go Creek, a near field site, close to where effluent discharge will eventually occur in upper Go Creek, and a far field site in lower Go Creek just upstream of the confluence with Money Creek. Two reference sites were also monitored, one at the mouth of Pup Creek near Go Creek, and the other on Bunker Creek upstream of the road crossing. Water quality during the EEM survey was similar to baseline water quality for September as described in the Wolverine Mine Baseline Characterization Summary Report (Lorax 21). There is evidence that cadmium and zinc levels are slightly higher at the near field site than at the other 3 sites, as has been observed during baseline water quality monitoring. Other parameters were at similar levels at all sites. All four sample sites were in shallow streams (2-5 cm deep) with riffle-run structure. The near field site and the Pup Creek site were smaller streams (wetted width 1.5 m, stream discharge m 3 /s) than the far field site and the Bunker Creek site (wetted width m, discharge.5-1. m 3 /s). All sites had predominantly gravel substrate. The effect of the higher discharge rate in Bunker Creek could be seen in lower substrate embeddedness and higher accumulations of woody debris than at the other sites. All sites supported a periphyton community dominated by diatoms, although the community structure was more diverse at the near field site where blue-green algae and chrysophytes were also common. Five replicates of benthic invertebrate samples were collected at each site. Descriptive statistics and statistical endpoints were calculated at the family taxonomic level. Chironomids were the predominant taxa at all four sites, particularly at the near field site

154 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT where the high abundance of chironomids accounted for 86% of the mean total abundance, while at the other 3 sites chironomids comprised 45 51% of the total abundance. The order Plecoptera was the second most abundant order at all four sites. Mean total invertebrate density was lower at the far field site than any of the other sites, which had densities that were not significantly different from each other. Total family richness per site was highest at the far field site (34) and lowest at the near field site (27). EPT richness was lowest at the near field site and the Pup Creek site, and approximately 5% higher at the other two sites. When richness was totaled for each replicate and the mean family richness compared statistically, it was found that richness was significantly higher at the far field site than at any of the other three sites, which were not significantly different from each other. Evenness, which is a measure of the proportioning of the abundance of invertebrates in the different families present at each site, was significantly lower at the near field site than at the other three sites, which had evenness indices that were not significantly different from each other. The lower evenness at the near field site reflects the high proportion of chironomids at this site relative to its total abundance. MMER recommends the use of Bray-Curtis Similarity Index as a quantitative measure of the benthic community distance between two sites. One site is a reference site and the other an exposure site. Bray-Curtis values calculated from this first EEM study were equal for the near field and far field sites, when calculated using either Pup Creek or Bunker Creek as a reference site. This indicates that both Go Creek sites had the same dissimilarity to reference sites. The Bray-Curtis value was significantly lower between the Pup Creek and Bunker Creek sites than it was between the Go Creek. If the Go Creek sites had been exposed to effluent, the greater dissimilarity between exposure sites than between reference sites may have been interpreted as an effect of exposure to effluent. This result indicates that the Bray- Curtis statistic should be omitted from the subsequent interpretive reports when interpreting benthic invertebrate data for Go Creek. With the exception of the Bray-Curtis Index, both Pup Creek and Bunker Creek sites served as adequate reference sites, and it is recommended that both be sampled in the second EEM survey. ii Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

155 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I TABLE OF CONTENTS... III 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND METHODS SAMPLING METHODS TAXONOMIC DATA ANALYSES RESULTS WATER QUALITY STREAM CHARACTERISTICS BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES TOTAL INVERTEBRATE DENSITY RICHNESS EVENNESS SIMILARITY INDEX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY DATA REPORT PERIPHYTON TAXONOMY REPORT BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY REPORT iii

156 TABLE OF CONTENTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT LIST OF FIGURES iv FIGURE 1-1: LOCATION OF THE WOLVERINE MINE IN THE YUKON FIGURE 2-1: EEM BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SAMPLE SITES FIGURE 3-1 : CONCENTRATION OF CADMIUM, COPPER, AND ZINC IN WATER AT EEM MONITORING SITES FIGURE 3-2: PERIPHYTON BIOMASS (± 1 STANDARD DEVIATION) AT EEM SITES FIGURE 3-3: TOTAL INVERTEBRATE DENSITY (± 1 STANDARD DEVIATION) FIGURE 3-4: MEAN FAMILY RICHNESS CALCULATED FROM 5 REPLICATES PER SITE COMPARED TO TOTAL RICHNESS AT EACH SITE FIGURE 3-5: MEAN EVENNESS (± IS STANDARD DEVIATION) AT EACH SITE FIGURE 3-6: MEAN BRAY-CURTIS DISTANCE (± IS STANDARD DEVIATION) FROM REFERENCE MEDIAN CALCULATED FROM SITE W13 FAMILY ABUNDANCE DATA FIGURE 3-7: MEAN BRAY-CURTIS DISTANCE (± IS STANDARD DEVIATION) FROM REFERENCE MEDIAN CALCULATED FROM SITE W76 FAMILY ABUNDANCE DATA LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: EEM MONITORING SITES TABLE 2-2 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SAMPLING DETAILS TABLE 3-1: WATER QUALITY RESULTS TABLE 3-2: STREAM HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 3-3: SUBSTRATE PERCENT EMBEDDEDNESS WHERE EACH BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED TABLE 3-4 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF FAMILIES AT EEM SITES TABLE 3-5 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR TAXONOMIC GROUPS AT EEM SITES TABLE 3-6: TOTAL INVERTEBRATE DENSITY TABLE 3-7: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TOTAL INVERTEBRATE DENSITY TABLE 3-8: RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE IN MEAN INVERTEBRATE DENSITY BETWEEN THE FOUR EEM MONITORING SITES TABLE 3-9: MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST FOR MEAN INVERTEBRATE DENSITY TABLE 3-1: SPECIES AND FAMILY RICHNESS AT THE FOUR EEM SITES TABLE 3-11: FAMILY RICHNESS IN EACH REPLICATE TABLE 3-12: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FAMILY RICHNESS PER REPLICATE TABLE 3-13: RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN FAMILY RICHNESS BETWEEN THE FOUR EEM MONITORING SITES TABLE 3-14: MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST FOR MEAN FAMILY RICHNESS TABLE 3-15 RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN FAMILY RICHNESS BETWEEN MONITORING SITES W16, W13, AND W TABLE 3-16: SIMPSON S EVENNESS INDEX FOR EACH REPLICATE TABLE 3-17: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EVENNESS AT EACH STATION TABLE 3-18: RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN EVENNESS BETWEEN THE FOUR EEM MONITORING SITES Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

157 TABLE OF CONTENTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT v TABLE 3-19: MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST FOR MEAN EVENNESS TABLE 3-2: RESULTS OF BRAY-CURTIS INDEX CALCULATIONS USING MEDIAN FAMILY ABUNDANCE AT W13 AS THE REFERENCE ABUNDANCE TABLE 3-21: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR BRAY-CURTIS INDEX AT EACH STATION USING SITE W13 AS REFERENCE TABLE 3-22: RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN BRAY-CURTIS SIMILARITY INDEX CALCULATED USING SITE W13 AS MEDIAN REFERENCE TABLE 3-23: MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST FOR MEAN BRAY-CURTIS SIMILARITY INDEX CALCULATED USING SITE W13 AS MEDIAN REFERENCE TABLE 3-24: RESULTS OF BRAY-CURTIS INDEX CALCULATIONS USING MEDIAN FAMILY ABUNDANCE AT W76 AS THE REFERENCE ABUNDANCE TABLE 3-25 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR BRAY-CURTIS INDEX AT EACH STATION USING SITE W76 AS REFERENCE TABLE 3-26: RESULTS OF ANOVA TESTING FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN BRAY-CURTIS SIMILARITY INDEX CALCULATED USING SITE W13 AS MEDIAN REFERENCE TABLE 3-27: MULTIPLE COMPARISON TEST FOR MEAN BRAY-CURTIS SIMILARITY INDEX CALCULATED USING SITE W13 AS MEDIAN REFERENCE Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

158 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Yukon Zinc Corporation s (YZC) Wolverine Mine in south-eastern Yukon (Figure 1-1) is an underground mining project produces copper, lead and zinc concentrates. The Wolverine Mine is currently in the mine commissioning phase with the majority of site infrastructure having been constructed. The ore is processed in the mill with a portion of the tailings going to the tailings storage facility, and the rest being used as paste backfill (a mixture of cement and mill tailings) to fill the mined-out stopes. Waste material is hauled back underground to the mined-out stopes and encapsulated in the paste backfill. Water from the underground workings and from the process plant is pumped to the tailings facility, and reclaimed as necessary in the process plant. The Wolverine Mine operates with a positive water balance, but at present the tailings pond has not reached its storage capacity and no effluent has been discharged. A water treatment plant is being designed to treat the excess water accumulating in the tailings impoundment. Excess water consists predominantly of tailings process water, with lesser quantities of mine contact surface runoff, underground water, treated sewage effluent and direct precipitation. Water treatment and effluent discharge is planned to occur only during the ice-free period of May to October. All effluent produced from the Wolverine Mine will be treated through the water treatment plant and discharged to Go Creek adjacent to the tailings impoundment. On June 3, 29 the Wolverine Mine became subject to section 7 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). The MMER were developed under section 36 of the Fisheries Act to regulate the deposit of mine tailings and other waste material produced during mining operations within natural fish bearing watersheds. The MMER were annexed on June 6, 22 and are administered by Environment Canada. Specifically, section 7(1) requires that: The owner or operator of a mine shall conduct environmental effects monitoring studies of the potential effects of effluent on the fish population, on fish tissue and on the benthic invertebrate community in accordance with the requirements and within the periods set out in Schedule 5. The MMER prescribe a schedule for completion of the first biological monitoring study that can be summarized as follows (from Schedule 5, Part 2): 1. Submission of first study design within 12 months after the day the mine becomes subject to section 7 of the MMER (section 14a); 2. Conduct the first biological monitoring study not sooner than six months after the day on which a study design is submitted (section 15(1)); 3. Data assessment of information collected during study (section 16); 1-1

159 INTRODUCTION WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Preparation of the first interpretative report of the results from the biological monitoring study (section 17); and 5. Submission of first interpretative report not later than 3 months after the date the mine becomes subject section 7 of the MMER, if the study design was submitted under paragraph 14(a) (section 18a). In accordance with the above schedule, the Wolverine Mine Environmental Effect Monitoring (EEM) first study design was first submitted in June 21. Environment Canada reviewed the first study design and provided written comments to Yukon Zinc on August 27 th, 21. Environment Canada recognized that since the mine would not be discharging effluent that effluent characterization and fish population studies are exempt from the initial EEM study, but that a benthic invertebrate survey will be required and that a first interpretive report will be due by December 3, 211. A revised study design was submitted in October 21 which addressed the comments from Environment Canada. The field work conducted as per the first study design was carried out in September 211. This included a survey of benthic invertebrates, ambient water quality, sediment quality, hydrology, and periphyton. The results and interpretation of these studies are presented herein. Chapter 2 describes the survey methods. Chapter 3 presents results, and Chapter 4 provides a summary and the conclusions of the study. Yukon Zinc Corporation Figure 1-1: Location of the Wolverine Mine in the Yukon. LORAX

160 2. Methods Environmental Effects Monitoring was carried out as described in the Wolverine Mine First Study Design. Field work was carried out September 2 to 5, 211. Four sites were sampled (Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1). Each site was surveyed for water quality, sediment quality, stream discharge rate, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates. 2.1 Sampling Methods Water and sediment quality sample bottles were supplied by Maxxam Analytics Inc. (Maxxam) in Burnaby, BC. Water quality samples were collected upstream of the sampler by submerging the bottle with the opening facing down then turning the bottle to fill underwater in order to avoid sampling water from water/air interface. Bottles were filled for analyses of physical parameters, nutrients and anions, total cyanide, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total and dissolved metals. Dissolved metal and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) samples were filtered in the field, and samples requiring preservation were preserved in the field. Samples were kept cool and shipped to Maxxam on September 8 th for analyses. Field measurements were made of temperature, ph, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen at the time of sampling. Sediment quality samples were collected from depositional zones in the vicinity of the riffle zones where benthic invertebrate samples were collected. Five sediment samples were collected at each of the four sample sites. Sediment jars were filled to avoid leaving a head space. Samples were kept cool and shipped to Maxxam on September 8 th for analyses. Sediment samples were analyzed for particle size distribution and total metals. A strong acid leach digestion was carried out for total metal analyses. Table 2-1: EEM Monitoring Sites Station ID W16 W12 W13 W76 Coordinates (UTM NAD83 Zone 9V) Northing Easting (latitude) (longitude) 442,534 ( ) 443,152 ( ) 452,185 ( ) 45,43 ( ) 6,87,974 ( ) 6,82,216 ( ) 6,816,625 ( ) 6,81,15 ( ) Waterbody Go Creek Go Creek Description Near field site, ~75 m downstream of proposed effluent discharge point Far field site, ~7 m downstream of proposed effluent discharge point Sample date 2-Sep Sep-211 Pup Creek Reference site 5-Sep-211 Bunker Creek Reference site 3-Sep

161 METHODS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 2-2 Figure 2-1: EEM Benthic Invertebrate Sample Sites Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

162 METHODS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 2-3 Stream discharge rate was determined from measurements of flow rate across a cross section of stream at each sample site. Total depth and flow rate were measured with a wading rod flow meter at 8 13 evenly spaced distances from the stream edge, depending on the width of the stream. Flow rate was measured at 6 percent of the total depth (measured from the surface) as a best estimate of the mean flow at each location. Samples for periphyton biomass and taxonomy were collected at each of the four monitoring sites. Periphyton biomass was determined from chlorophyll a concentration. Periphyton were scraped from rocks into a sample container. Samples were scraped from a cm 2 disk (5.5 cm diameter). Between 2 and 5 disks were composited for biomass samples, then filtered onto a.45 µm membrane filter. Due to filter clogging, more than one filter was used per sample. Chlorophyll was extracted from all filters from each replicate. Three biomass samples (replicates) were collected at each site. Chlorophyll filters were wrapped in aluminum foil, in order to prevent photodegradation, and kept cool during storage. Chlorophyll a was analyzed at Maxxam laboratory. Periphyton taxonomy samples (three replicates per site) were collected in the same manner as biomass samples and preserved with Lugol s solution. Taxonomic analyses were carried out by Stantec. Taxonomic analyses were semi-quantitative and reported as relative abundance. Benthic invertebrate samples were collected using a Hess sampler, following the methods described in the B.C. Field Sampling Manual (MOE, 23). The Hess sampler used had an area of.86 m 2 and mesh size of 243 µm. The Hess sampler was pushed into the stream substrate and then the invertebrates were dislodged from stones and other substrate for five minutes and washed into the cod-end for collection. Two or three Hess sets per replicate were composited in order to ensure enough organisms were collected to characterize the benthic community (Table 2-2). Five replicates were collected per site. Samples were preserved with ethanol and shipped to Cordillera Consulting in Summerland, BC for identification and enumeration The taxonomic laboratory sorted samples into large (>1 mm) and small (.5-1 mm) size fractions, and sub-sampled each fraction as listed in (Table 2-2) in order to achieve a total of approximately 25-5 individuals that were identified in each size fraction. The.5 mm sieve is the recommended mesh size in the EEM Guidance Document (Environment Canada, 211) and was recommended in the First Study Design. Invertebrates were identified to lowest practical taxonomic level practical. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

163 METHODS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 2-4 Table 2-2 Benthic invertebrate sampling details. Laboratory splitting (% counted) Site Replicate # Subsamples per replicate 1 mm sieve.5 mm sieve W16 A B C D E W12 A B C D E W13 A B C D E W76 A B C D E Stream physical characteristic measurements at each site included bankfull and wetted width, substrate embeddedness, dominant soil type, riparian vegetation present, stream shading estimate, woody debris estimate, and an estimate of aquatic plant presence. 2.2 Taxonomic Data Analyses Taxonomic data from benthic invertebrate samples were summarized as total invertebrate density, species richness, family richness, Simpson s Evenness Index, and Bray-Curtis Similarity Index. Calculation of total density included all individuals enumerated, including individuals that could not be identified to the family level. For the community descriptors of richness evenness, and similarity the data were grouped to family level. That is, all species within a family were summed before the calculations were performed. Some groups could only be identified to a level higher than family (e.g. nematodes were identified to phylum) and all individuals were treated as belonging to one family. Invertebrates that could only be identified to a level higher than family and could belong to several different families (e.g. immature individuals of the Order Plecoptera (stoneflies) could belong to any of 6 families) were omitted from community descriptor calculations. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

164 METHODS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 2-5 Means were compared using a single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) run in Excel s data analysis toolpak. This test calculates an F statistic which is compared to a critical value (F crit). The comparison of means was typically the mean of 5 replicates each at 4 sites. Using the significance level of.1 that was pre-determined in the Wolverine Mine EEM First Study Design, the F crit is F.1(1),3,16 = If the ANOVA determined that there was a difference between means, then the Tukey multiple comparison test was used to identify which means are different from each other. This is a pair wise comparison that calculates a q value as the difference between means divided by the standard error (SE), which is calculated as the square root of the error mean square from the ANOVA (s 2 ) divided by the number of data in each group (n). where The calculated q is evaluated against the critical value q crit to determine if the mean values are equal (X A = X B ) or unequal (X A X B ) (Zar, 1984). Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

165 3. Results 3.1 Water Quality Water quality results for MMER parameters of focus are listed in Table 3-1. Complete water quality results are provided in Appendix A. All sites were shallow with turbulent water and fully saturated with dissolved oxygen. All streams had neutral to slightly alkaline ph. Water hardness was higher in Bunker Creek than Go Creek. Sulphate, a common tracer of mine effluent, was present at approximately the same background level at all sites, which is expected since no effluent had been discharged. Water quality in September 211 was similar to baseline levels as reported in Lorax (21). Levels of some metals (e.g. cadmium and zinc) are slightly higher at near field site W16 than at far field site W12 or reference sites W13 and W76 (Figure 3-1). The cadmium level measured at W16 (.74 µg/l) is above the CCME interim guideline (.26 µg/l), although this guideline is under review and toxicological evidence indicates that the levels measured at W16 do not pose a risk to the organisms that inhabit fast flowing streams such as Go Creek. All mercury results were below its detection limit of.1 µg/l. 3-1

166 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-2 Table 3-1: Water Quality Results Units W16 W12 W13 W76 Temperature-Field C ph - Field ph ph -Lab ph Dissolved oxygen-field mg/l Specific conductance-field µs/cm Total Hardness (CaCO 3 ) mg/l Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3 ) mg/l Ammonia (N) mg/l Nitrate (N) mg/l.56 <.2 <.2 <.2 Dissolved Sulphate (SO 4 ) mg/l Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide mg/l Cyanide + Thiocyanate mg/l.1.7 <.5.8 Total Suspended Solids mg/l <4 <4 <4 <4 T- Aluminum (Al) µg/l D- Aluminum (Al) µg/l T- Arsenic (As) µg/l D- Arsenic (As) µg/l T- Cadmium (Cd) µg/l D- Cadmium (Cd) µg/l T- Copper (Cu) µg/l D- Copper (Cu) µg/l T- Iron (Fe) µg/l D- Iron (Fe) µg/l T- Lead (Pb) µg/l D- Lead (Pb) µg/l <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 T- Mercury (Hg) µg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 D- Mercury (Hg) µg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 T- Molybdenum (Mo) µg/l D- Molybdenum (Mo) µg/l T- Nickel (Ni) µg/l D- Nickel (Ni) µg/l T- Zinc (Zn) µg/l D- Zinc (Zn) µg/l Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

167 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Cadmium (µg/l) Total Dissolved Guideline (hardness of 76 mg/l). 2.5 W16 W12 W13 W76 Detection limit Copper (µg/l) Total Dissolved Guideline (hardness of 76 mg/l) W16 W12 W13 W76 Detection limit 3 Guideline Zinc (µg/l) Total Dissolved 1 5 W16 W12 W13 W76 Detection limit Station Figure 3-1: Concentration of cadmium, copper, and zinc in water at EEM monitoring sites. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

168 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Stream Characteristics The streams sampled were shallow, riffle and run habitats with primarily gravel substrate (Table 3-2). Pup Creek is a smaller stream than Go Creek or Bunker Creek. The reference site sampled at the mouth of Pup Creek (W13) has similar characteristics to the near field site (W16) located in the headwaters of Go Creek. The characteristics of site W12 at the mouth of Go Creek were similar to those of site W76 on Bunker Creek. Site W13 had noticeably more shading and more abundant aquatic plant biomass than the other 3 sites. Site W76 had noticeably more woody debris than the other 3 sites. Table 3-2: Stream Habitat Characteristics Measurement Units W16 W12 W13 W76 Bankfull width m Wetted width m Median depth m Discharge m 3 /s Habitat type Riffles/runs Riffles Riffles/runs Riffles Substrate relative abundance Boulder % Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay % Substrate Embeddedness % Woody debris present? None Rare Rare Common Dams present No No No No Stream shading % <25 < <25 Aquatic plants abundant? No No Yes No Periphyton % Filamentous % Macrophytes % Semi-quantitative analysis of periphyton samples found that sites W13 and W76 had relatively more moss present than at W16 and W12. Diatoms were the predominant type of periphyton at all four sites, comprising greater than 95% of periphyton at W13 and W76, and lesser proportion (15 85%) at sites W16 and W12. Variability in types of periphyton present between replicates was much higher at W16 and W12 than at W13 or W76. At W16 the predominant type was blue-green algae in the first replicate, a golden alga (Hydrurus foetidus) in the second replicate, and diatoms in the third replicate. More information on periphyton taxonomic analyses is provided in Appendix B. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

169 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-5 Periphyton biomass, measured as chlorophyll a concentration, was highly variable between the replicates at a station (Figure 3-2). The high variability masked any differences in mean biomass between stations: results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) found no difference between means (F = 2.72 < F crit = 2.92 at a significance level of.1) therefore means are not statistically different. 5 4 Chlorophyll a (µg/cm 2 ) W16 W12 W13 W76 Figure 3-2: Periphyton biomass (± 1 standard deviation) at EEM sites. 3.3 Benthic Invertebrates Embeddness was estimated at each sample site before a benthic invertebrate sample was collected (Table 3-3). The generally lower embeddedness at site W76 is likely due to the higher stream discharge rate at this site (Table 3-2) which would inhibit deposition of suspended particles. Table 3-3: Substrate percent embeddedness where each benthic invertebrate sample was collected Replicate W16 W12 W13 W76 A B C D E Benthic invertebrates were identified to lowest practical taxonomic level. Complete taxonomic results are provided in Appendix C. Most of the descriptive statistics required for EEM monitoring are done at the family level of taxonomy. Species level data were summarized to family level by summing the abundances of all species in a family. Animals identified only to order level were assumed to belong to one family unless more than one Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

170 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-6 family was present for that order. Invertebrates that could only be identified to order and could belong to several different families were omitted from calculations of descriptive statistics. The proportion omitted from descriptive statistics was small ( % of total). Average abundances of families present at EEM sites are listed in Table 3-4. The relative proportions of predominant orders are listed in Table 3-5. Diptera (true flies) accounted for approximately half of the total number of invertebrates sampled at site W12, W13, and W76, and 87% of invertebrates present at the near field site W16. The family Chironomidae (nonbiting midges) accounted for the majority of organisms within the order Diptera, so that chironomids accounted for 86% of total invertebrate abundance at site W16 and 45-51% of total abundance at the other 3 sites. At each site, Plecoptera (stoneflies) were then next most abundant order. Ephemeroptera (mayflies) were more abundant at sites W12 and W76 than at the other two sites. Ostracods were more abundant at site W16 than at the other 3 sites, although they were relatively uncommon in comparison to the total abundance at W16. Table 3-4: Average abundance of families at EEM sites. Taxon W16 W12 W13 W76 Order: Ephemeroptera Family: Ameletidae 5 12 Family: Baetidae Family: Ephemerellidae Family: Heptageniidae Order: Plecoptera Family: Capniidae Family: Chloroperlidae Family: Leuctridae Family: Nemouridae Family: Perlodidae Family: Taeniopterygidae Order: Trichoptera Family: Brachycentridae Family: Glossosomatidae Family: Hydropsychidae Family: Hydroptilidae 1 Family: Limnephilidae Family: Rhyacophilidae Family: Uenoidae Order: Diptera Family: Ceratopogonidae 2 1 Family: Chironomidae Family: Empididae Family: Psychodidae Family: Simuliidae Family: Tipulidae Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

171 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-7 Table 3-4 (continued): Average abundance of families at EEM sites. Other Orders Order: Lepidoptera 2 3 Family: Poduridae 2 1 Class: Ostracoda Family: Aturidae Family: Feltriidae 4 5 Family: Hygrobatidae Family: Lebertiidae Family: Sperchontidae Family: Hydrozetidae Family: Lumbriculidae 8 2 Family: Enchytraeidae Family: Naididae 2 Family: Tubificidae 2 Phylum: Nemata Family: Planariidae Total average abundance Table 3-5: Relative abundance of major taxonomic groups at EEM sites. Order W16 W12 W13 W76 Ephemeroptera 1 % 13 % 1 % 14 % Plecoptera 4 % 17 % 35 % 29 % Trichoptera 2 % 1 % 11 % 1 % Diptera 87 % 56 % 46 % 51 % other 6 % 4 % 7 % 5 % Total Invertebrate Density Total invertebrate density, including unidentified animals, is listed for each replicate in Table 3-6. Descriptive statistics for these data are listed in Table 3-7. The arithmetic mean density at near field site W16 is approximately equal to the density at reference site W13. The mean at far field site W12 is approximately 2% less than at W13 but the variability around the mean is large enough there is overlap in error bars (1 standard deviation) (Figure 3-3). Comparison of means using analysis of variance (single factor ANOVA run in Excel) finds that there is no statistical difference in mean density between any of the sites (Table 3-8). Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

172 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-8 Table 3-6: Total Invertebrate Density Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W W W W Table 3-7: Descriptive Statistics for Total Invertebrate Density Site Mean SD SE Median Minimum Maximum W W W W Total invertebrate density (# m -2 ) Figure 3-3: W16 W12 W13 W76 Total invertebrate density (± 1 standard deviation) Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

173 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-9 ANOVA Table 3-8: Results of ANOVA testing for difference in mean invertebrate density between the four EEM monitoring sites. Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between mean density of any of the 4 sites. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that there is a significant difference between mean density at any of the 4 sites. Significance level (α) =.1 Since F > F crit Ho is rejected. To identify which sites have different mean abundances the Tukey multiple comparison test was used (Table 3-9). For this test SE (within = groups MS from Table 3-8/n) = (279692/5) = The ranked means are W76 > W13 > W16 > W12. The conclusion from this test and Figure 3-3 is that mean invertebrate density at site W12 is lower than at any of the other sites, and that the other 3 sites have the same density. Table 3-9: Multiple comparison test for mean invertebrate density W12 vs W76 W16 vs W76 X A -X B q q crit = q.1,16,4 = 3.52 W12 W16 = W12 = W Richness Richness is a measure of the number of different types of invertebrates that were present at a site. Since samples were identified to lowest practical taxonomic level, this permits the calculation of species richness (i.e. the number of different species present) as well as family richness (the number of different families present) (Table 3-1). Table 3-1: Species and Family Richness at the Four EEM Sites Site W16 W12 W13 W76 Species richness Family richness EPT 1. species richness Total species in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

174 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-1 The order of species richness is W12 = W76 > W16 > W13 The order of family richness is similar to species richness: W12 > W76 > W13 > W16 There was little difference in family richness between stations. Near field site W16 had 27 families present while reference site W13 had 28 families. Site W12 and W76 had similar richness, with the same number of species and almost the same number of families (Table 3-1). EPT richness is the number of species present that are in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera. These are often considered more sensitive to contaminants than other taxa, and relatively low numbers of EPT taxa could indicate a toxic effect to the benthic community, although MMER do not specify the use of EPT richness in EEM monitoring. EPT richness showed the same relative pattern as family richness, with higher numbers of EPT species at sites W12 and W76 (27-29) than at sites W16 and W13 (both with 19 EPT species). The richness values listed in Table 3-1 are the total from all 5 replicates combined. This meets the definition provided is Section 4.9 of the EEM Guidance Document (Environment Canada, 211): The total number of different taxonomic categories collected at the station. MMER section 16(a) states that the data from benthic invertebrate monitoring shall be used to calculate the mean, the median, the standard deviation, the standard error and the minimum and maximum values in the sampling for descriptive statistics including taxa richness. To make these calculations richness is calculated for each replicate, rather than the total number of taxa at a station (Table 3-11). Descriptive statistics calculated from family richness in each replicate at a station are listed Table Arithmetic mean ±1 standard deviation is shown in Figure 3-4 compared to total family richness per site. The 2 methods of calculating richness show the same relative difference between sites. Table 3-11: Family Richness in Each Replicate Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W W W W Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

175 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-11 Table 3-12: Descriptive Statistics for Family Richness per Replicate Site Mean SD SE Median Minimum Maximum W W W W Examination of Figure 3-4 indicates that the mean family richness at W12 is greater than at the other 3 sites, and that sites W16, W13, and W76 have similar family richness. Analysis of variance run on replicates from all four sites confirms that there is a difference in mean richness between sites (Table 3-13) Family Richness Mean richness richness ± 1 st. dev. Total family richness per station W16 W12 W13 W76 Figure 3-4: Mean family richness calculated from 5 replicates per site compared to total richness at each site. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

176 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-12 Table 3-13: Results of ANOVA testing for difference between mean family richness between the four EEM monitoring sites. ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between mean richness at any of the 4 sites. Significance level (α) =.1 Since F > F crit reject Ho To identify which sites have different mean family richness, the Tukey multiple comparison test was used (Table 3-14). For this test SE = (within groups MS from Table 3-13/n) = (6.15/5) =.9. The ranked means are W12 > W76 > W13 > W16. The result of this Tukey test shows that mean richness at W12 is not equal to any of the other 3 means, but it is ambiguous with respect to the comparison between the other 3 sites, since the test shows that W76 = W13 and W13 = W16, but W76 W16 (Table 3-14). This ambiguous result is indicative of the error that is inherent with the significance level of any comparison of means. To help clarify the ambiguous result of the Tukey test, an ANOVA was carried out omitting site W12 (Table 3-15). This test found that the 3 means were equal. From these tests it can be concluded that W12 W76 = W13 = W16. Table 3-14: Multiple comparison test for mean family richness W12 vs W16 W12 vs W13 W12 vs W76 W76 vs W16 W76 vs W13 W13 vs W16 X A -X B q q crit = q.1,16,4 = 3.52; W12 W76 W16 = W13 or W12 W76 = W13 = W16 Table 3-15 Results of ANOVA testing for difference between mean family richness between monitoring sites W16, W13, and W76. ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that µ 16 = µ 13 = µ 76 Significance level (α) =.1 Since F < F crit accept Ho Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

177 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Evenness Evenness is a measure of the relative proportion of taxa in an invertebrate sample. There are several methods available for calculating evenness. For EEM, the Simpson s Evenness Index (E) is used, and is calculated as E = 1/ (p i ) 2 /S, where p i is the proportion of the i th taxon and S is the total number of taxa. For EEM, evenness is calculated at the family level. An evenness approaching 1 means that there are approximately equal number of organisms in each family present in a sample. Conversely, an evenness approaching zero means that most of the total abundance in a sample is in one family and the other families present have very low abundance. Simpson s Evenness Index for each replicates is listed in Table Descriptive statistics for evenness at each station are listed in Table Mean evenness ±1 standard deviation is shown Figure 3-5. Table 3-16: Simpson s Evenness Index for each replicate Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W W W W Table 3-17: Descriptive statistics for evenness at each station Site Mean SD SE Median Minimum Maximum W W W W Graphically, it is apparent that evenness at site W16 is lower that at the other sites. ANOVA results indicate that the mean evenness is not the same at all sites (Table 3-18). A Tukey multiple comparison test confirms that evenness at W16 is significantly lower than at any of the other sites, and that evenness is equal at the other 3 sites (Table 3-19). In general, evenness is low, indicating a large proportion of total number of invertebrates are present in only a few families. This is particularly true at site W16, where the family Chironomidae comprised 86% of the total abundance at that site. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

178 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Simpson's Evenness Index W16 W12 W13 W76 Figure 3-5: Mean evenness (± is standard deviation) at each site. Table 3-18: Results of ANOVA testing for difference between mean evenness between the four EEM monitoring sites. ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between mean evenness. Significance level (α) =.1 Since F > F crit reject Ho Table 3-19: Multiple comparison test for mean evenness. W13 vs W16 W76 vs W16 W12 vs W16 W13 vs W12 W13 vs W76 W76 vs W12 X A -X B q SE =.18; q crit = q.1,16,4 = 3.52; W16 W12 = W13 = W76 Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

179 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT Similarity Index The Bray-Curtis (B-C) Similarity Index is a measure of the association, or distance, between sites. The B-C Index is calculated as: where: B-C = Bray-Curtis distance between sites 1 and 2 Y i1 = count for taxon i at site 1 Y i2 = count for taxon i at site 2 n = total number of taxa present at the two sites Two sites that are entirely different will have B-C value of 1, and two sites that are identical will have a B-C value of. The B-C Index is recommended in EEM studies as it quantitatively summarizes the overall difference in community structure between reference sites and exposure sites. For the first EEM study at the Wolverine Mine, there are no exposure sites, since no effluent has been discharged. Instead of using the B-C Index to measure potential effect of effluent exposure, the B-C Index is calculated here as an assessment of whether the proposed reference sites are appropriate for assessing impacts to Go Creek benthic communities. As recommended in the EEM Guidance Document (Environment Canada, 211) the median abundance at the reference site is used in the B-C calculation. That is, Y i2 in the B-C equation is the median abundance of family i at reference station W13. The Guidance Document states that the result of the numerator, denominator, and the B-C value should be reported for each station (including the reference station) (Table 3-2). The mean B-C value at each station is listed in Table 3-21, along with other descriptive statistics, and graphed in Figure 3-6. Comparison of the mean B-C value finds site W13 has the lowest value, that is, it has the smallest distance from the median reference. This result is expected, since the W13 family abundance data was used to calculate the reference median. That is, the W13 B-C value is an index of similarity to itself, and therefore doesn t have much meaning. For this reason, W13 is omitted from the ANOVA to test for difference in mean B-C value between stations. Table 3-2: Results of Bray-Curtis Index calculations using median family abundance at W13 as the reference abundance. Site Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W16 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

180 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-16 Site Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W12 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value W13 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value W76 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value Table 3-21: Descriptive statistics for Bray-Curtis Index at each station using site W13 as reference. Site Mean SD SE Median Minimum Maximum W W W W Bray-Curtis Index W16 W12 W13 W76 Figure 3-6: Mean Bray-Curtis distance (± is standard deviation) from reference median calculated from site W13 family abundance data. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

181 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-17 Table 3-22: Results of ANOVA testing for difference between mean Bray-Curtis Similarity Index calculated using site W13 as median reference. ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between mean BC Index Significance level (α) =.1 Since F > F crit reject Ho Table 3-23: Multiple comparison test for mean Bray-Curtis Similarity Index calculated using site W13 as median reference. W16 vs W76 W16 vs W12 W12 vs W76 X A -X B q SE =.26 q crit = q.1,12,3 = 3.2 W16 = W12 W76 From the above comparisons it may be concluded that Go Creek sites W16 and W12 have equal similarity to reference site W13. Bunker Creek site W76 has a significantly shorter B-C distance to W13 median than either of the Go Creek sites. In other words, the Go Creek sites are significantly more dissimilar to the Pup Creek reference site than to the Bunker Creek reference site. Bunker Creek site W76 was included in the study design as a potential reference site, since baseline benthic invertebrate sampling had not identified a robust reference site. Therefore, the B-C calculations were redone using W76 family abundance data as the median reference (Table 3-24, Table 3-25, and Figure 3-7). The results using W76 reference median were very similar to those using W13 reference median. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

182 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-18 Table 3-24: Results of Bray-Curtis Index calculations using median family abundance at W76 as the reference abundance. Site Site Replicate A Replicate B Replicate C Replicate D Replicate E W16 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value W12 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value W13 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value W76 Y i1 -Y i (Y i1 +Y i2 ) B-C value Table 3-25 Descriptive statistics for Bray-Curtis Index at each station using site W76 as reference Site Mean SD SE Median Minimum Maximum.6 W W W W Bray-Curtis Index W16 W12 W13 W76 Figure 3-7: Mean Bray-Curtis distance (± is standard deviation) from reference median calculated from site W76 family abundance data. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

183 RESULTS WOLVERINE MINE EEM FIRST INTERPRETIVE REPORT 3-19 Table 3-26: Results of ANOVA testing for difference between mean Bray-Curtis Similarity Index calculated using site W13 as median reference. ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups Within Groups Total Null hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between mean BC Index Significance level (α) =.1 Since F > F crit reject Ho Table 3-27: Multiple comparison test for mean Bray-Curtis Similarity Index calculated using site W13 as median reference. W12 vs W13 W12 vs W16 W16 vs W13 X A -X B q SE =.31; q crit = q.1,12,3 = 3.2; W16 = W12 W13 Since the B-C distances were essentially the same using either W13 or W76 as the reference site, it may be concluded that either site may be used as a reference site for future studies of benthic invertebrates in Go Creek. A major problem with the use of the B-C Index is that it found a significantly greater distance between the Go Creek sites and the reference median (either W13 or W76) than was calculated between Pup Creek and reference median W76 or between Bunker Creek and reference median W13. That is, the Go Creek sites (i.e. exposure sites) had significantly greater dissimilarity than either of the non-exposure sites monitored. This could be interpreted as an impact. For this first study, since no effluent has been discharged, it cannot be concluded that there has been a mine related impact. For future studies that will occur during periods of effluent discharge, the B-C results will need to be interpreted with caution, if the B-C Index is applied to future monitoring studies. It should be noted that, while more replication is always preferred for statistical analyses, more having more replicates per site would likely have no effect on the B-C results. More replicates would tend to reduce variability around the mean. It can be seen from Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 that the mean B-C value would be equal for W16 and W12 even if the error bars around the mean are markedly reduced. Similarly, smaller error bars would not change the conclusion that the B-C distance for W13 or W76 is significantly smaller than for W16 and W12. Yukon Zinc Corporation LORAX

184 4. Summary and Conclusions Environmental Effects Monitoring carried out at near field site (W16), far field site (W12) and reference sites (W13 and W76) found that water quality was similar at all sites and was similar to water quality levels during the baseline monitoring period. No parameters were present at levels that are expected to produce toxicity. Stream morphology was most similar between W16 and W13. Site W76 had substantially higher discharge rate than at W16 and W13, and embeddedness was lower at W76. Analysis of benthic invertebrate statistical endpoints determined that: Total invertebrate density: W12<W16=W13=W76 Mean family richness: W12>W16=W13=W76 Mean Simpson s evenness W16<W12=W13=W76 Bray Curtis dissimilarity W16=W12>W13=W76 Collectively, these results may have been interpreted as showing an effect at either of the Go Creek sites, had there been any exposure to effluent. Site W16 has lower evenness and greater dissimilarity than reference sites. Site W12 has lower density and greater dissimilarity. At site W16, the result of lower evenness is due to a larger abundance of individuals in the family Chironomidae than at the other sites. This occurred naturally, and should be used in the evaluation of future benthic invertebrate studies. The omission of the Bray-Curtis results from the interpretation of benthic invertebrate data would help prevent arriving at the false conclusion that an effect has occurred at the exposure sites. Therefore, it is recommended for the second EEM study that the Bray-Curtis Index not be included as one of the statistical endpoints. Without considering the Bray-Curtis Index, both W13 and W76 appear to be adequate reference locations. It is recommended that both sites be included in the second EEM survey, since having more than one reference site reduces the chance of erroneously concluding an effect has occurred in the exposure site. It is recommended that the second EEM survey take place in 213, around the same time of year as the first EEM survey, as stated in the first study design. This assumes that effluent will have been discharging throughout the spring and summer of 213. It is noted that a second study design is required to be submitted at least six months before the second survey is conducted, according to MMER Schedule 5, section 19(1). Since this first EEM survey found no effect to fish or benthic invertebrates due to exposure to effluent, the second interpretive report is due within 36 months of submission of the first interpretive report (MMER Schedule 5, section 22(1)). 4-1

185 References Lorax, 21. Wolverine Project Baseline Characterization Summary Report. Prepared for Yukon Zinc Corp. by Lorax Environmental Services Ltd. February, 21. MOE. 23. British Columbia Field Sampling Manual For Continuous Monitoring and the Collection of Air, Air-Emission, Water, Wastewater, Soil, Sediment, and Biological Samples. Prepared and published by Water, Air and Climate Change Branch, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Province of British Columbia. Accessed at Environment Canada. (211). Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Technical Guidance Document. Gatineau, Quebec: Environment Canada. Accessed at Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, SOR/ (26). CanLII. Zar, JH Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. 4-2

186 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Appendix D: Tailings Humidity Cell Update Report Marsland Environmental Associates Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212

187 October 17, 211 Yukon Zinc Corp. #71, 475 Howe St., Vancouver, BC, V6C 2B3 Ms. Mary Mioska Manager, Environment Dear Ms. Mioska: Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells Update The following provides a summary of the Wolverine tailings humidity cells to September 27, 211. The Overall Ore Composite (OC) and Overall Diluted ore composite (OD) tailings humidity cells have run an additional 35 weeks since the last update to January 25, 211 at weeks 294 and 288, respectively. Testing has now reached weeks 329 and 323 for the OC and OD cells, respectively. The OC tailings sample results from a densification process referred to as DMS that was originally considered for the Wolverine project. The OD sample was generated by recombining the DMS float and sink. The OD sample is more representative of the tailings generated at Wolverine than the OC sample SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL RESULTS At last update, the ph of cell OC dropped slightly, primarily within the range of ph 6.5 to 6.7 and the ph of Cell OD had continuously dropped from approximately ph 5.5 to ph 4.7. Since the last update, the ph of Cell OC showed some scatter, primarily within the range of ph 6.3 to 6.8. The ph of Cell OD has continuously dropped from approximately ph 4.7 to ph 3.5 (see Figure 1.1) although a slight leveling off may be occuring. 1 The definition of the two ore (tailings) types is given in a report from SGS titled An Investigation into the Recovery of Copper, Lead, and Zinc from Wolverine Project Samples, p. 15 and 25, Aug 3, 25.

188 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program Figure 1.1 Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells - ph Acidity and alkalinity production rates remain low in Cell OC, consistent with the near-neutral ph and limited by calcite solubility. However, the acidity production rate in Cell OD has increased considerably since the last update, consistent with the drop in ph. The alkalinity production rate in Cell OD remained nondetectable since the last update. The sulphate production rate for Cell OC has remained fairly constant over the past 35 weeks, at about 65 mg/kg/wk. Cell OD showed a steady increase in sulphate production from around 22 mg/kg/week to around 33 mg/kg/wk since January 25, 211. Cell OD sulphate concentrations have ranged from 54 to 8 mg/l over the past 35 weeks, up from around 5 mg/l over the previous 6 months of testing Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 2

189 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program Sulphate production Rate (mg/kg/wk)) Wolverine Tailings HC - Sulphate Production Comb Overall Ore Comp Comb OD Comp Comb Wolv D Comp Comb Lynx D Comp Time (Weeks) Figure 1.2 Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells Sulphate Production Both cells show an abundance of total sulphur remaining (96.5% and 91.6% for cells OC and OD, respectively) with initial sulphate sulphur contents of 59.7% and % remaining for cells OC and OD, respectively. Sulphate flushing is occurring at a slow rate from the OC cell given that 35 weeks ago sulphate sulphur remaining was 62.7%. Flushing of the initial suphate sulphur from cell OD was completed at around Week 33, when a total mass of sulphate equivalent to the initial sulphate sulphur was finally flushed from the sample. Table 1.1 summarizes the range in loading rates for Cu, Se and Zn for the 35 cycles leading up to the latest data collection on September 27, 211. Table 1.1 Range in Leachate Elemental Loading Rate over past 35 weeks Element Cell OC Loading Rate Cell OD Loading Rate (mg/kg/wk) (mg/kg/wk) Cu Se Zn The current Zn loading rate of 2.7 mg/kg/wk in Cell OC is well below the initial flush value of 8.9 mg/kg/wk. Cell OD shows zinc loading rates of 4.7 mg/kg/wk, well over the initial flush rate of 4.3 mg/kg/wk. There has been a strong increasing trend in loading rates since week 232 (see Figure 1.3), with the latest Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 3

190 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program value about 4 times higher than the neutral ph flushing rate of close to 1 mg/kg/wk. Figure 1.3 Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells - Zn Loading Rates Selenium (Se) loadings have remained relatively constant over the testing period for Cell OC since the initial flush (see Figure 1.4). Cell OD is showing increasing Se loading rates. The most recently observed Se loading rates in cell OD are approximately five times the base rate that was observed prior to the onset of acidic conditions Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 4

191 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program Figure 1.4 Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells - Se Loading Rates Copper loading in Cell OC remains stable within a narrow range and continues at a low level. A striking change over the past year is the dramatic increase in copper loading rates in the OD cell leachate (see Figure 1.5). The copper loading rate has risen from around.19 mg/kg/wk to 1.6 mg/kg/wk, with a strong upward trend following the onset of acid generation around week 232. The timing of this trend is consistent with the change in Zn loading over the same time period, and both curves exhibit the typical exponential growth curve expected after ARD onset. The trend in Cu loadings is the most pronounced; the increase is ~85-fold for copper, ~4-fold for Zinc and ~5-fold for Se. The trends in metal loading rates are not showing any substantive evidence of slowing Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 5

192 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program Figure 1.5 Wolverine Tailings Humidity Cells - Cu Loading Rates Table 1.2 shows that in the OC cell, of the original Se and Zn contained within the sample used to charge the humidity cell, 5.1% and 4.1%, respectively have been flushed out. While, for the OD cell, 22% and 37% of each of the Se and Zn has been removed, respectively. These percentages suggest that Se and Zn leaching will continue for an extended period, even for the OD cell. Table 1.2 HEAD ICP Se (mg/kg) Percent Removal of Original Se and Zn Total Se Released Over Humidity Cell Period (mg/kg) % Se Removed Head ICP Zn (mg/kg) Total Zn Released Over Humidity Cell Period (mg/kg) % Zn Removed OC , OD ,5 2, Time to Onset of ARD In humidity cell testing, it is commonly assumed that sulphide oxidation is not taking place at a substantial rate until flushing of all of the original sulphate Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 6

193 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program measured during the pre-test ABA characterization is complete. Cells OC and OD are showing measurable sulphate in the leachate collected weekly. Prior to depletion of the original sulphate, it is likely that a majority of the sulphate measured is due to flushing of the original sulphate within the sample with only some sulphate produced due to sulphide oxidation. It is difficult to assess, however, what portion of the sulphate produced is due to sulphide oxidation. Therefore, generally the assumption is made that all sulphate is from flushing as explained above. The time to initial sulphate sulphur flushing has been estimated to be 12 years for Cell OC. To date, approximately 4% of the initial sulphate has been removed from the OC cell. As mentioned above, this assumes that all the sulphate measured in the solution is due to flushing of the original sulphate and is not a result of sulphide oxidation. It is expected that eventually the sulphide oxidation rate would begin to increase with Neutralization Potential (NP) depletion leading to the onset of acidic conditions. The time to NP depletion is required to estimate the time to onset of ARD within a laboratory humidity cell. However, the initial sulphate is still flushing from the OC cell, so it is not possible to ascertain what portion of the sulphate released is from sulphide oxidation. This renders the Carbonate Molar Ratio calculations invalid and precludes an accurate calculation of the time for NP depletion of the OC cell. Based on the ABA calculations for the OC humidity cell data, acid generation would not occur in the OC Cell for many years. Nevertheless, elevated concentrations of selenium and zinc can be expected in any water contacting the OC cell tailings solids. The ph of the OD cell drainage has dropped steadily and shown signs of acidic conditions since Week 232 (4.5 years of flushing). The onset of acidic drainage was observed despite remaining initial sulphate and abundant NP at the time. According to ABA calculations for the OD humidity cell data, the initial sulphate was removed from the OD cell by May 1, 211, which corresponds to 33 weeks (5.8 years) from the beginning of the humidity cell testing on the sample. As mentioned, this assumes that all the sulphate measured prior to week 33 was due to flushing of the original sulphate and not a result of sulphide oxidation. The NP depletion calculation shows that only 3% of the initial Sobek-NP has been depleted to date, despite the dramatic drop in ph, showing that the majority of the NP is not capable of buffering the leachate at a ph above ph 3.5. It needs to be remembered, however, that the small amount of reactive/available NP did keep the humidity cell ph in the neutral range for over 4 years of weekly flushing at room temperature. This would be considerably slower under site conditions Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 7

194 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program 2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TESTWORK CONTINUATION To date, stable long term leaching rates have not been achieved in ether cell. Although leaching rates did not stabilize over the timeframe of the testing program, the tests illustrated the following characteristics about the samples: Initial flush and neutral drainage leaching rates that could be expected given controlled laboratory conditions. The OC and OD samples showed elevated rates of leaching for Se and Zn for neutral ph drainage. When the drainage became acidic in the OD cell, the leaching rates for Cu, Se, and Zn increased exponentially over time, in response to the drop in ph. The tests have indicated that the onset of acid generation in lab conditions could take approximately 5 years for the OD cell sample and upwards of 7 years for the OC cell sample material. MEA believes that although the humidity cell tests have provided valuable information about the samples, there would be little benefit in maintaining the cells beyond the present date for environmental planning and management purposes. However, it is recommended that a field-scale kinetic testing program be implemented at the project site. Leach test pads (field bins) should be constructed at the project site using samples of mill tailings going to the tailings impoundment. The intent of the field-scale program would be to develop a relationship for leaching rates and time to acid generation between the lab and the field. The humidity cells should be decommissioned according to the most current MEND (29) procedure as follows: Collect the supernatant, recording its volume. Handle and prepare the sample in the same manner as was done during the normal humidity cell operation. Label the sample Final Leach and submit it for leachate analysis (ph, conductivity, acidity/alakalinity, sulphate, metals by ICP-MS including Hg, thiosalts, Cl, F, CNO, CNS, NO3, NH3). Take a representative split from the solid sample and label it Final Residue. Submit the split for comprehensive compositional analysis (petrographics, XRD, expanded ABA, ICP metals, Whole Rock Analyses by XRF, shake flask analyses (with ph, sulphate and metals)) Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 8

195 YUKON ZINC CORP. October 17, 211 Wolverine Tailings Kinetic Test Program It is recommended that until approval for shutdown of the cells is granted by the regulatory agencies, the frequency for elemental analysis continues to take place every fourth week, and the measurement of physical parameters (including ph, alkalinity, acidity, conductivity and SO 4 ) continue on a biweekly basis. Yours truly, Marsland Environmental Associates Ltd. Rina Freed, P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer Rob Marsland, P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer /attach digital version only of data compilation spreadsheet Wolverine Tails HC Update.docx Page 9

196 Wolverine Mine Monitoring and Surveillance Plan 211 Annual Report QML 6 Appendix E: Waste Rock and Ore Humidity Cell Update Report AMEC Earth and Environmental Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212

197 March 21, 212 TC5392 Ms. Mary Mioska Yukon Zinc Corporation Howe Street Vancouver BC V6C 2B3 Dear Ms. Mioska, Re: Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update 1. INTRODUCTION This letter report summarizes the most recent data and findings from the Wolverine Project (Wolverine) humidity cell testing program. This information was updated from data sent to AMEC from SGS CEMI of Burnaby, BC and includes data up to February 12, 212. Results from the humidity cells were last reported in March 3, 211 (AMEC, 211). Samples of Wolverine Project mine rock, ore, neutralization potential depleted ore (NP-depleted ore), Dense Media Separation (DMS) float, and cemented paste backfill have been tested as part of the program. A total of 24 humidity cells were operated during the course of the investigation; 8 were initiated in December 25, 5 in January 26, 6 in February 26, and 5 in May 26. Following recommendations made in November of 28 (AMEC, 28), 17 cells were shut down on February 19 th, 29 and operation of seven humidity cells was continued. The operating humidity cells contain mine rock samples (HC 4, HC 6, HC 7, and HC 1), an NP depleted ore sample (HC 21), and cemented paste backfill samples (T1 and T2). The Wolverine humidity cells operate on a weekly cycle and the cells are flushed on the seventh day. The leachates were analyzed weekly. Beginning in March 21, the leachates from humidity cells HC 4, HC 6, HC 7, and HC 1 were analyzed only on the fourth cycle. In April 21, the analysis of metals was transferred to Maxxam Analytics after they purchased Cantest Ltd. The transfer of metals analysis has resulted in lower ICP-MS detection limits for many elements and an increased detection limit in a few elements (R. Vos, pers comm., 211). The resulting calculated loading rates were assessed to estimate the anticipated flux of metals from the mine materials and the length of time for NP depletion and sulphide exhaustion. Release rates were calculated based on the weekly measured concentrations and volumes of leachate. AMEC Earth & Environmental, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited 16 Traders Blvd. East, Suite 11 Mississauga, Ontario Canada L4Z 3K7 Tel (95) Fax (95)

198 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 Provided below is a summary of the results for the humidity cell tests from commencement through to February 2, 212. Attached to this report are figures presenting the results. 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR OPERATING HUMIDITY CELLS The results for ph, and calculated loadings for sulphate, alkalinity, acidity and regulated metals, plus (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 molar ratios for humidity cells that are currently in operation are discussed in the following sections. The discussion excludes the initial 2 weeks of data to account for cell stabilization and the flushing of any accumulated oxidation products from the samples. 2.1 Mine Rock Humidity Cells Four humidity cells loaded with mine rock samples are currently in operation including cells containing samples of rhyolite (HC 4), calcite-pyrite exhalite (HC 6), carbonaceous argillite (HC 7), and argillite (HC 1). As of February 2, 212 (the most recently reported sampling event) three of the mine rock cells (HC 4, HC 6 and HC 7) have been in operation for 32 weeks and the other mine rock cell (HC 1) has been operating for 316 weeks (approximately 6 years, 1 month). Data for these cells were previously reported up to week 272 and week 269, respectively. ph Measured ph values for the leachates from humidity cells containing calcite-pyrite exhalite (HC 6) rock samples and argillite rock samples (HC 1) have remained circum-neutral to alkaline throughout the humidity cell testing period (Figure 1). The ph ranged from 7.2 to 8. and from 6.8 to 8.3 for HC 6 and HC 1, respectively. Since the last update, the ph values in the leachates from rhyolite rock sample (HC 4) have continued to decrease (Figure 1). Acidic leachate with a ph level around 3.6 was measured in the most recent leachate from HC 4. Measured ph values for carbonaceous argillite rock samples (HC 7) have continued to decrease since approximately week 13 (Figure 1). The most recent measured ph level for HC 7 was 2.8. Alkalinity and Acidity Alkalinity loads from the calcite-pyrite exhalite rock sample (HC 6) and argillite rock sample (HC 1) have remained relatively steady throughout the test period, ranging from 13.8 to 43.4 mg/kg/wk (Figure 2). TC5392 Page 2

199 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 Since the last update, alkalinity loads from the rhyolite rock sample (HC 4) continued to decrease in response to the decreasing ph levels and ceased to report valid alkalinity values as of week 268 when the leachate ph decreased to values below ph 4.5. The carbonaceous argillite rock sample (HC 7) has not reported alkalinity since approximately week 21 (Figure 2) when the leachate ph decreased below ph 4.5. At ph values less than 4.5, determination of alkalinity is no longer valid as the test involves the addition of acid to titrate the sample down to a ph of 4.5. The acidity release rates from HC 6 and HC 1 have moderately varied during the course of testing (Figure 3). Release rates from HC 6 have varied from.68 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk to 5.9 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk, and averaged 1.8 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk, while rates from HC 1 have varied from.39 to 6.74 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk and averaged 1.6 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk. Acidity release rates from HC 4 and HC 7 have generally increased since the last update (Figure 3). The acidity release rates from HC 4 have increased approximately three and a half times since the last update increasing to over 35 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk in the most recent week of testing. The acidity release rates from HC 7 increased considerably since approximately week 228 with the acidity release rates reaching a maximum of mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk at week 288 and then started to decline to 6 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk in the most recent week of testing. Sulphate Sulphate release rates from the calcite-pyrite exhalite (HC 6) and argillite rock samples (HC 1) declined a little since the last update (Figure 4). The average sulphate release rate from HC 6 was 53 mg/kg/wk. The average sulphate release rate from HC 1 was 13 mg/kg/wk. The sulphate release rate from the rhyolite rock sample (HC 4) has increased steadily since approximately week 15 with a rate of 72 mg/kg/wk in the most recent week of testing (Figure 4). The sulphate release rate of the carbonaceous argillite rock sample (HC 7) has also increased steadily and reached a maximum of 181 mg/kg/wk at week 288 before descending to 8 mg/kg/wk in the most recent week of testing. Metals The metal release rates (Figures 5 to 15) from calcite-pyrite exhalite (HC 6) and the argillite rock sample (HC 1) have been generally steady since the previous update. A change in detection limit has resulted in lower reported concentrations and calculated release rates for parameters including arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, and silver from cells HC 6 and HC 1. The release rates of aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, silver and zinc from HC 4 have increased since the last update while decreasing for HC 7. The molybdenum release rates from the rhyolite rock sample (HC 4) have decreased since the last reporting TC5392 Page 3

200 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 period and the selenium release rates have remained steady. The carbonaceous argillite rock samples (HC 7) release rates of molybdenum and selenium have remained steady since the last reporting period. Molar Ratio of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 Molar ratios of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4, representing the relative rate of carbonate NP consumption (moles of calcium plus magnesium) to AP depletion (moles of sulphate), for rhyolite rock samples (HC 4) and carbonaceous argillite rock samples (HC 7) have remained below 1. since the last reporting period (Figure 16). These results indicate that insufficient alkalinity is being released to neutralize the acidity produced by the samples, and is supported by the acidic leachate ph results for both samples. Molar ratios of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 for HC 6 generally continue to remain at or above 1 since the last update, ranging from.99 to 1.6 (Figure 16). The molar ratios in cell HC 1 however remain above 2, ranging from 1.8 to 3.4 in HC 1. These values indicate that acidity produced by these samples continues to be neutralized by excess released alkalinity; this process is evidenced by the continued circum-neutral to alkaline ph values of the leachates. 2.2 NP Depleted Ore Humidity Cell The NP depleted ore sample (HC 21) has been in operation for 298 weeks (5 years, 9 months) as of January 31, 212. The previous report included data up to week 25. ph The ph of leachate from cell HC 21 has continued to decrease since week 11 (Figure 17). While the leachate has gone acidic, within the last ten weeks the ph values have stabilized around ph 2.1. Alkalinity and Acidity The alkalinity loads from HC 21 have generally decreased during the cell operation (Figure 18). In response to ph levels less than 4.5 since week 165, testing of alkalinity is not applicable. Acidity release rates from the cell have continued to increase since the last update reaching a maximum of 6962 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk at week 262. However, since this peak, the acidity release rates have been in decline. The most recent acidity release rate was 167 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk (Figure 19). TC5392 Page 4

201 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 Sulphate Sulphate release rates for the NP-depleted ore cell have continued to increase since the last update reaching a maximum value of 6586 mg/kg/wk at week 262. Sulphate release rates have been in decline ever since. The most recent sulphate release rate was 214 mg/kg/wk in week 297 (Figure 2). Metals Metal release rates from the NP-depleted ore cell (HC 21) either decreased or stabilized since the last update (Figures 21 to 31), which coincided with the stabilization of ph in the leachate (Figure 17). Declines in metal leaching rates observed for arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc reflects the limits of solubility for each metal at ph 2.1 in concert with dilution caused by weekly sampling. Molar Ratio of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 The molar ratio of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 has decreased since week 116 for the NP-depleted ore cell (Figure 32). However, since the last update the molar ratio (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 has remained relatively stable with an average of.38. The most recent reported week of analyses recorded a ratio (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 of Cemented Paste Backfill Humidity Cells Two humidity cells loaded with cemented paste backfill have been in operation since May 26, i.e., a total of 298 weeks (5 years, 7 months). The previous report included data up to week 251. ph The ph values of the two paste backfill humidity cell samples have remained circum-neutral throughout the test period, ranging from 6.7 to 8.2 (Figure 33). The median ph was 7.9 for paste backfill T1 and 7.7 for paste backfill sample T2. Alkalinity and Acidity Alkalinity release rates from the paste backfill samples (T1 and T2) have remained generally steady since the last update (Figure 34). The average alkalinity release rates since the last update were around 27 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk for both humidity cells. Acidity release rates from the paste backfill humidity cell samples showed little variability throughout testing, ranging between.9 to 7.4 mg/kg/wk for the two cells. The average release TC5392 Page 5

202 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 rate since the last update was 2.5 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk for T1 and 2.4 mg CaCO 3 /kg/wk for T2 (Figure 35). Sulphate The sulphate release rates from the paste backfill humidity cells have remained relatively stable. The average sulphate release rate since the last update remained near 6 mg/kg/wk (Figure 36). Metals Metal loadings for the cemented paste backfill humidity cells are presented in Figures 21 through 47. The loading rates of aluminum, copper, molybdenum, lead and selenium from the paste backfill humidity cells have remained relatively stable with a possible moderate decline in release rates since the last update (Figures 38, 41, 43, 45, and 46). The cadmium and zinc release rates have increased since the last reporting period (Figures 4 and 47). The release rates of iron and silver (Figures 37 and 42) were often at the method detection limit (MDL) with some exceptions. In general, the arsenic loadings have decreased throughout the entire 298 week period. From weeks to 184, arsenic loads steadily decreased. From weeks 185 to 22, arsenic reported as below detection limit (<.2 mg/l). The arsenic loadings appeared to be stable in the 48 weeks of most recent testing. The average arsenic loading was.1 mg/kg/wk (Figure 39) since the last reporting period. Molar Ratio of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 Since the last update, the molar ratios of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 have maintained values greater than 1 in the paste backfill cells (T1 and T2) (Figure 48). The average molar ratios of (Ca+Mg)/SO 4 for each of the cells was 1.3 suggesting that NP is being consumed in response to sulphide oxidation. 3. Estimates of Sulphide and NP Depletion Estimates of sulphide and NP depletion rates are used to assist in the prediction of whether or not a particular mine material may generate net acidity in the future. Net acid generation is assumed to begin once the available NP in a sample is exhausted. Results from humidity cell testing are used to determine the rates of depletion and time to exhaustion. Generally, extrapolation of these laboratory results to a mine setting cannot be done directly; laboratory testing tends to overestimate the rates of sulphide and NP depletion compared to the TC5392 Page 6

203 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 underground environment. However, the results can be used to provide a general sense of the possible duration until sulphide and NP exhaustion and relative time difference between them. Estimates of sulphide and NP exhaustion were calculated for the seven humidity cells that are still in operation. Time to sulphide exhaustion was calculated using the sulphate release rates from each of the humidity cells and the amount of total sulphur as determined by the initial acid base accounting (ABA) static testing analyses. Estimates of sulphide exhaustion times for each humidity cell are presented in Table 1. Estimates of NP exhaustion were based on the calculated calcium plus magnesium depletion rates (based on the measured and predicted loss of calcium and magnesium, and assuming that all NP consists of calcium and magnesium carbonates) and the initial amount of NP measured in each sample. NP depletion calculations accounted for unavailable-np, where applicable. Estimates of NP exhaustion times for the operating humidity cells are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Estimate of NP and Sulphide Exhaustion Time Cell Sample ID Rock Type Years to Exhaustion NP Sulphide Status HC 4 Footwall Rhyolite and rhyolite Rhyolite 3 fragmental Acidic after 256 weeks HC 6 EXCP-3 Calcite-pyrite exhalite Potentially non acidic HC 7 Argillite 2 Carbonaceous argillites Acidic after 198 weeks HC 1 A83529 Argillites Potentially acid generating HC 21 Hump Ore NP-depleted ore 2.3 Acidic after 146 weeks T1 Paste Backfill Tailings backfill Potentially acid generating T2 Paste Backfill Tailings backfill Potentially acid generating Calculated NP and sulphide exhaustion times from the mine rock samples in the operating cells suggest that these mine rock samples will deplete their NP prior to the exhaustion of available sulphides. Cell HC 6 (calcite-pyrite exhalite) is considered potentially non-acid generating; however the estimated difference between NP and sulphide exhaustion is very small and could result in the cell becoming acidic in the future. The rhyolite, carbonaceous-argillite, and argillite rock samples could generate acid in the future. These rock samples could generate acid under laboratory conditions in a period of around five to nine years. The rhyolite and carbonaceousargillite rock samples generated acid sooner than the predicted NP exhaustion time. This result suggested that the actual available NP for neutralizing acid in the rock samples was less than the measured Sobek NP. The unavailable NP in the argillite rock sample may be associated TC5392 Page 7

204 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March 212 with the phyllosilicates and the iron bearing phases of ankerite (Ca(Fe 2+ Mg, Mn)(CO 3 ) 2 ) as identified previously (AMEC 26). The available NP in the NP-depleted ore sample was already fully depleted since the leachate became acidic in week 146. Since the last update, the release rate of sulphate from this sample has remained above 1 mg/kg/wk. The NP and sulphide depletion calculation results suggest that the NP in the cemented paste backfill under laboratory conditions will be exhausted prior to sulphide depletion. The cemented paste backfill cells (T1 and T2) have an estimated NP exhaustion period of approximately six to seven years. The NP depletion time is expected to be longer in the underground mine due to differences in the environmental settings between the laboratory and the underground mine such as infiltration rate, temperature, and oxygen availability. 4. Summary Three of four mine rock cells including rhyolite (HC 4), carbonaceous-argillite (HC 7), and argillite rock (HC 1) samples were estimated to exhaust their NP prior to the exhaustion of sulphide, suggesting that acidic conditions could form within these materials over time. The calcite-pyrite exhalite sample (HC 6) is considered potentially non acid generating; however the difference between NP and sulphide depletion times is small and could result in the formation of acidic conditions in this sample. The rhyolite and carbonaceous-argillite rock samples have already begun generating acidic leachate during the testing period. The estimated NP exhaustion time for rhyolite and carbonaceous-argillite was around six to nine years. The leachate from NP-depleted ore cell (HC 21) has gone acidic. The release rates of sulphate, acidity and metals have either stabilized or decreased. The cemented paste backfill cells (T1 and T2) have generally stable release rates of sulphate, alkalinity, acidity and metals. The ph of leachates has remained circumneutral throughout test period. Both cells are expected to deplete their NP prior to the depletion of available sulphides. An estimated NP exhaustion time in the laboratory for these cells was approximately six or seven years. As mentioned, laboratory conditions are notably different than the conditions found in the underground workings. These differences could significantly affect the actual sulphide oxidation and NP depletion rates experienced by the tested rock types. Generally, laboratory humidity cells are accelerated weathering tests that overestimate sulphide oxidation and NP depletion rates. Consequently, slower sulphide oxidation and NP depletion rates are more likely to be achieved in the underground workings than in the laboratory. TC5392 Page 8

205 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March References AMEC, 21. Wolverine Project Update: Shutdown of 17 Humidity Cells and Update of Continuing Humidity Cells. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, March 17, 21. AMEC, 28. Wolverine Project: Recommendations for Continued Humidity Cell Testing. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, November 28. AMEC, 26. Wolverine Project. Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Assessment of Mine Rock and Predicted Water Quality of the Underground Workings at Closure. Prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, February 26. TC5392 Page 9

206 Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update Yukon Zinc Corporation March CLOSURE This memo was prepared exclusively for Yukon Zinc Corporation (Yukon Zinc) by AMEC Americas Limited (AMEC). The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein are consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC s services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this memo. This memo is intended to be used by Yukon Zinc only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party s sole risk. Yours truly, AMEC Earth & Environmental, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited Ezra Kulczycki, Ph.D. Steve Sibbick, M.Sc., P. Geol. Principal Geochemist Senior Review CD/JA/EK/SS/vc \\MIS-FS1\ProjectF$\Geo\TC5392.Wolverine ARD\211 HCell\Wolverine Project Humidity Cell Update 212 JA_EK_SS_vc.docx TC5392 Page 1