McLean Lake Process Review Phase I Reportww3.whitehorse.ca/Planning/reports/McLean-Phase-1-Report.pdfMcLean Lake Process Review Prepared for The City of Whitehorse September 2006 Reference:

McLean Lake Process Review Phase I Report

Prepared for The City of Whitehorse Submitted by Gartner Lee Limited September 2006

McLean Lake Process Review Prepared for The City of Whitehorse September 2006 Reference: GLL 60503 Distribution: 3 City of Whitehorse 1 Gartner Lee Limited

August 31, 2006 Brian Crist, P. Eng Director of Operations City of Whitehorse 2121 Second Ave. Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 1C2 Dear Mr. Crist: Re: McLean Lake Process Review, Phase I Report Attached is our initial report for your review. We would be pleased to discuss our findings with you and the approach and timing of Phase II of this project at your convenience. A final and revised report that captures feedback received from discussions during Phase II will be provided in September, as originally planned. Yours very truly, GARTNER LEE LIMITED Jesse L. Duke Manager, Whitehorse. Principal.

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Letter of Transmittal

Page

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1

2. Review of Process and Legislation as it Relates to the Application ..............................1 2.1 Environmental Assessment Act .......................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Background............................................................................................................ 1 2.1.2 Review ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Land Application Review Committee (LARC) .................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Background............................................................................................................ 4 2.2.2 Review ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 5

2.3 The City of Whitehorse Official Community Plan (OCP).................................................. 5 2.3.1 Background............................................................................................................ 5 2.3.2 Review ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 6

3. Summary of Stakeholder Issues .......................................................................................6 3.1 Socio-economic Effects (Property Values)......................................................................... 7 3.2 Visual Impacts .................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Hydrological/Hydrogeological Assessment........................................................................ 8 3.4 Determination of Project Alternatives ................................................................................ 8 3.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 9 3.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables Table 1. Mclean Lake Review Process Chronology .................................................................................. 11 Table 2. McLean Lake Project Issues Summary .................................................................................. 16

(Final Phase 1 Report_sept19.doc)

M c L e a n L a k e P r o c e s s R e v i e w , P h a s e I R e p o r t

1. Introduction

The City of Whitehorse is presently reviewing an application from Territorial Contracting Ltd. to move a concrete batch plant operation from Ear Lake to a new facility on the McLean Lake Road, west of the Alaska Highway. Gartner Lee Ltd. was engaged to conduct a process review of the steps taken to date relating to this proposal. The objective of this review is to determine if all requirements under appropriate legislation, regulation and policy have been met in undertaking the review by governments to date. Specifically, this includes an examination of the Project Description to determine if the contents meet the requirements of the Yukon Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). Secondly, the consistency of the process with requirements of EAA, and other relevant laws (or by-laws) that apply to the regulatory approvals was evaluated. The City has requested that Gartner Lee meet with stakeholders, including McLean Lake residents and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation to review their concerns and answer questions in relation to the environmental assessment process. The objectives for the stakeholders meetings would be to ensure:

1. There is a clear understanding of the history and process of this application, including previous (extensive) consultation.

2. There is clear understanding and articulation of stakeholder issues. 3. There is a clear understanding of how these issues were addressed in the review process.

This report is intended to form the basis of this second phase of work.

2. Review of Process and Legislation as it Relates to the Application

2.1 Environmental Assessment Act

2.1.1 Background

In 2003, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) legislating assessment of activities for projects conducted within the Yukon. A product of devolution, EAA essentially mirrored CEAA with responsibility for environmental assessment transferred

(Final Phase 1 Report_sept19.doc) 1


from the federal government to the Yukon Government. Like CEAA, EAA mandated the determination of environmental effects of projects prior to commencement of activities. Under EAA, projects were assessed at one of three levels (an environmental screening, comprehensive study or review panel assessment) dependent on the scope of the project. Under the Environmental Assessment Act that was in effect at that time, the McLean Lake Quarry and Batch Plant project was subject to environmental assessment at the screening level pursuant to Section 4(1)(c) of EAA, which states:

An environmental assessment of a project is required before a territorial authority exercises one of the following powers or performs one of the following duties or functions in respect of a project, namely, where a territorial authority has the authority to administer territorial lands and sells, leases or otherwise disposes of those lands or any interest in those lands, or transfers the administration and control of those lands or interests, for the purposes of enabling the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

The application subject to environmental assessment and review was submitted to YTG on May 21, 2002; however, the application was deferred at that time pending adoption of the Whitehorse Official Community Plan (OCP). Prior to the project submission, the proponent had applied for a similar project as early as 1994 (denied in January 1995), again in May 1997 (deferred until February 1998 to obtain further information on gravel resources and future land uses in the area). The process followed for the May 2002 application was conducted under the Environmental Assessment Act, through the Lands Advisory Review Committee. A chronology of the process is summarized in Table 1. 2.1.2 Review

A Responsible Authority (RA) under the Environmental Assessment Act is defined as a territorial authority that either is a project proponent, finances the project, disposes of land or an interest in land, or is a regulator for a function that appears on the Law List1. In this case, the RA was the Government of Yukon, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (Lands Branch) because the Government will be required to issue a lease and dispose of land under the Lands Act. Notification was distributed to the territorial and federal government departments that were likely to have an interest in the project, and to the Taán Kwachán and Kwanlin Dun governments. The Government departments were asked to confirm their role in the process. No other department declared themselves to be an RA, and the Lands Branch was identified as the sole RA for this project.

1 The Law List is regulation pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. This regulation lists the specific statutory responsibilities that trigger a regulatory function on the part of a government body.



Project requirements were evaluated as they relate to the Environmental Assessment Act. These legislated project requirements pertain to factors that must be considered during a screening level assessment, as outlined in Section 12 (1) of EAA, and include:

a) The environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out;

b) The significance of the effects referred to in (a); c) Comments from the public that are received in accordance with the Act and the regulations; d) Measures that are technically and economically feasible that would mitigate any significant

adverse environmental effects of the project; e) Any other matter relevant to the screening, such as the need for the project and alternatives that

the responsible authority may require to be considered. As a means of evaluating information available to YTG to meet legislative requirements to consider all factors as outlined in Section 12(1) of EAA, Gartner Lee reviewed the “Project Description and Environmental Effects Assessment, McLean Lake Gravel Quarry and Batch Plant”, submitted by Territorial Contracting Ltd. to YTG, Lands. This report contained the following information:

• A project description, including a project overview, review of the project area, timing considerations, quarry locations, site infrastructure, heavy equipment, concrete batch plant details, access routes, overburden stockpiles management, powerlines, water use and disposal, and granular resource management;

• A description of the environment, including background and scope, climate, terrestrial setting, water resources, hydrogeological assessment, fisheries resources, vegetation, wildlife, heritage resources and current land use;

• Consultation; and • Potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation.

As defined under EAA, the scope of the project in relation to which an environmental assessment is to be conducted shall be determined by the Responsible Authority (Section 11(1)(a)). The Responsible Authority, the Yukon Government, adopted a spatial scope of the assessment confined to the McLean Creek watershed, concluding this area included all areas of surface water, groundwater, and access corridors that may be affected by the project. A temporal scope of assessment of 50 years was determined based on project life. The scope of the assessment focused on Valued Ecosystem and Cultural Components (VECCs) established by the RA through evaluation of comments made throughout the consultation process, and included water resources, which encompassed concerns related to quantity and quality in surface and



groundwater in the McLean Creek watershed, and terrestrial biota including the McLean Lake riparian area, project footprint and buffer zones. Cumulative effects of the project were also considered by both the proponent in the project description and by the RA in the screening report as required by Section 12(1)(a) of EAA. Identification of mitigation measures and determination of the significance of environmental effects (considering mitigation) were considered for all VECC related issues. In the screening report the RA notes several other issues raised during the consultation process including alternate areas for the project, traffic safety, noise and air quality concerns, disturbance of heritage resources, zoning issues and impacts on property values. The RA addressed these issues in the screening report, with the exception of impacts to property values, as this issue was considered outside of the scope of the assessment. Other issues outside of the scope of the environmental assessment such as traffic safety and zoning issues were discussed briefly in the screening report, presumably for clarification purposes. 2.1.3 Conclusion

Based on the information provided, the environmental assessment of the proposed McLean Lake Gravel Quarry and Batch Plant considered all factors as legislated by EAA (Section 12(1)) and the information available to the responsible authority including the project description, stakeholder review comments, and other relevant sources of information including those generated from the LARC review process were sufficient for consideration of these factors. 2.2 Land Application Review Committee (LARC)

2.2.1 Background

The role of LARC is to facilitate inter-departmental and inter-governmental coordination of land management matters (LARC Terms of Reference June 1, 2005). Membership on LARC is comprised of government representatives from the federal, territorial, First Nation and municipal governments, government mandated advisory boards such as Renewable Resource Councils and non-governmental stakeholders. The Committee reviews applications for land and provides advice to government on land management and dispositions, policy and regulatory matters. 2.2.2 Review

This application was reviewed according to the normal LARC procedures, including consultation with members of the general public, and a local group of residents known as the McLean Lake Community Association.



Between 1994 when the original application was submitted by TCL and February 2005 when LARC completed the final screening report and authorized the proponent to proceed in obtaining City approvals, there were approximately 10 meetings of LARC at which various representations were made concerning the project. The original application was denied in January 1995. The second application submitted in May 1997 was deferred pending review of a geotechnical report evaluating granular resource potential produced by EBA Engineering for YTG, and completion of the OCP (at that time, it was anticipated that the OCP would be completed in about 2 years). At the August 14 2002 LARC meeting, the application was deferred to allow additional time for comments to be submitted and the City to complete the OCP. The OCP was adopted by the City in mid-October 2002. The area was recognized as an important aggregate resource and designated as a Natural Resource Area in the OCP. The application was again reviewed at the LARC meeting on March 11, 2004, and was subsequently deferred until September 2004 to provide additional time to compile and digest information submitted to LARC, to clarify the relation of the OCP and zoning to the application, and to identify additional information required from the proponent. A draft screening report was circulated for review on July 12, 2004 and comments were to be provided by August 20th. At the September 9th 2004 meeting of LARC, the Committee recommended deferral until December 9th to obtain more information on cumulative effects and allow the Department of Environment (YTG) to review the hydrological/hydrogeological assessment. The second draft of the screening report was distributed in November 2004 with comments to be provided by December 9th. A final screening report was issued in January 2005. 2.2.3 Conclusion

The public consultation process, conducted through LARC, meets the requirements as stated under section 12(1)c of EAA, and the public review and comment of the draft screening report conducted between July 2004 and January 2005 satisfies the requirements for public review and comment as stated under section 14(3) of EAA. 2.3 The City of Whitehorse Official Community Plan (OCP)

2.3.1 Background

The City of Whitehorse Official Community Plan is a land use document that outlines policy for future land development within municipal boundaries. The OCP was developed through a community consultation process, and is intended to be a non-static, continually evolving document. The OCP has been adopted under Bylaw 2002-1, mandating all land use decisions made by Council by consistent with the objectives and policies outlined in the OCP.



The OCP was developed over the course of several years, roughly between 2000 and October 2002 when it was adopted by the City of Whitehorse. 2.3.2 Review

A review of the process that was followed during the development and adoption of the OCP is beyond the scope of this review. However, it should be noted that a decision on the application was deferred pending the completion of the OCP to allow the City to complete a review of the gravel resource potential, identify and designate future gravel resources in the City, and to provide adequate public review of the options that were presented during the evolution of the OCP. The gravel resources at McLean Lake were recognized in the OCP through the designation of this area as Natural Resource. Policy 8.2 of the OCP states: The Natural Resource designation recognizes the potential for the extraction and management of mineral and gravel deposits. There is some mineral and gravel potential along the Whitehorse Cooper Belt, Sleeping Giant Hill and in the northwest corner of the city limits known as Stevens. 2.3.3 Conclusion

The Natural Resource designation recognizes the potential for the extraction and management of mineral and gravel deposits. Several policies were also identified in the OCP relating to the Natural Resource designation (Policies 8.2.1-8.2.8). The designation in the OCP forms an important component of the context in which this process review has been conducted.

3. Summary of Stakeholder Issues

During review of the McLean Lake environmental assessment process, several sources of information were considered to identify stakeholder issues including the Screening Report, LARC minutes, Project Description and Environmental Effects Assessment Report, and other correspondence from stakeholders throughout the assessment process. A summary of stakeholder issues including proposed mitigation and/or response to the issue is presented in Table 2. Several issues raised throughout the assessment process were addressed through changes in project design, proposed mitigation measures, or were considered outside of the environmental assessment scope. Issues that remained controversial or had a factor of uncertainty throughout the assessment process included:



• Socio-economic effects (property values) • Visual Effects • Hydrological/Hydrogeological assessment • Alternatives to the project • Cumulative Effects

3.1 Socio-economic Effects (Property Values)

One issue raised during the assessment process was related to impacts from the potential development on property values in the McLean Lake area. Impacts to property values were not considered within the scope of the EA, as factors to be considered during an environmental screening as per Section 12(1) of EAA include the environmental effects of a project, which are defined as “any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and socio-economic conditions….”. As impacts to property values are not considered a direct effect of a change in the environment, EAA does not legislate inclusion of this issue in an environmental assessment. Therefore, an environmental assessment conducted under EAA may not consider socio-economic effects that are not a direct result of changes to the environment, such as impacts of the project on property values. For this reason, the responsible authority, YTG, Lands, considered impacts to property values outside of the scope of the assessment. The RA noted in the screening report that this area is designated “Natural Resource” area, and as such is identified as a future gravel resource. The responsible authority has considered socio-economic impacts as defined under EAA, such as impacts to recreational use of the area and has included proposed mitigation measures such as relocation of a portion of a recreational trail and the requirement for maintaining buffers around the disturbed area. 3.2 Visual Impacts

During the assessment process, stakeholders raised concerns in relation to visual impacts from the quarry and batch plant operation. Visual impacts are typically considered outside of the scope of an environmental assessment, and as noted at the December 9, 2004 LARC meeting, were considered as such in this assessment. Visual impacts are very subjective and are usually addressed in an environmental assessment by the discretion of the Responsible Authority. Although the RA chose not to address visual impacts of the proposed project in the screening report, the proponent does address this issue in the Project Description and has proposed mitigation measures such as maintaining undisturbed buffers (including topographical) around the project area. It should be noted that the use of buffers is required as per the Official Community Plan (OCP).



3.3 Hydrological/Hydrogeological Assessment

The conformance of the hydrological and hydrogeological assessment included in the “Project Description and Environmental Assessment, McLean Lake Gravel Quarry and Batch Plant” report with the City of Whitehorse OCP was raised during the LARC review process. Specifically these issues included:

• Conformance with Policy 8.2.8 of the OCP, which states “Further environmental studies, and management plan shall be conducted in consultation with the local neighbourhood, prior to any gravel or mineral extraction on or around Sleeping Giant Hill”.

• Conformance with Policy 11.2.4 of the OCP, which states “A detailed hydrological and hydrogeological assessment of the McLean Lake water shall be undertaken prior to any further gravel extraction. This study should explain how the watershed works, in identifying the primary water source points, main run-off and infiltration characteristics and implications of water flow on the ecology of the watercourse. The impacts of possible gravel extraction, storm water run-off and sewage septic and or well usage should be discussed”.

The above noted issues relate to conformance with the OCP and are not within the scope of the environmental assessment process. The LARC process did, however, address these concerns. In relation to conformance with the OCP Policy 8.2.8, the LARC process was identified by the City as a sufficient forum for consultation considering that the process includes engagement with stakeholders throughout the assessment. In relation to conformance with OCP Policy 11.2.4, the proponent consulted YTG, Lands and the City of Whitehorse in the early stages of the environmental assessment to discuss requirements for a hydrological/hydrogeological study. All parties agreed, given the limited water usage of the project, that a desktop study was adequate, as a single proponent should not be responsible for a complete hydrological/hydrogeological assessment of the McLean Lake watershed due to the magnitude and cost associated with a detailed study. The City notes that the further assessment may be required prior to the issuance of a development permit for the quarry and batch plant (September 9, 2004 LARC meeting minutes). The adequacy of the hydrogeological assessment to effectively assess impacts to water levels within the McLean Lake watershed and down gradient water bodies was raised during the LARC review process. As a technical evaluation of the hydrological/hydrogeological study is outside of the scope of this review, this issue is not addressed further in this report. 3.4 Determination of Project Alternatives

Another issue raised by some stakeholders during the assessment process was in relation to consideration of project alternatives, including alternate areas of gravel extraction within Whitehorse. Although the



screening report did discuss considerations of alternative gravel resource locations in relation to the identification of “Natural Resource” areas by the OCP development process, the RA may exercise discretion to consider alternatives to the project during a screening level environmental assessment as outlined in Section 12(1)(e) of EAA. In fact, the RA states in the screening report that “the Responsible Authority determined there are no other matters relevant to the screening that were required to be considered” in reference to Section 12(1)(e) of EAA. During the LARC process the proponent states that alternate project locations were considered, however, these locations were not considered feasible due to increased economic cost associated with longer haul distances and accessibility issues. 3.5 Cumulative Impacts

During the assessment process, concerns regarding the determination of no cumulative impacts by the RA, including the spatial scope used to assess those impacts, were raised. The Environmental Assessment Act mandates consideration of cumulative impacts of a project as per Section 12(1)(a). The proponent evaluated potential cumulative effects of the project in the EA report submission, and the RA considers cumulative impacts in the screening report, using a spatial scope of the McLean Creek watershed. Pursuant to Section 11(1) of EAA, the spatial scope of a proposed project is determined by the RA. Although a smaller scope may result in determination of a cumulative impact, this impact would be incremental given the proximity of several other quarry operations to the proposed project. 3.6 Conclusion

Following review of available information, it appears the RA, Government of Yukon, Lands, considered stakeholder and public comments throughout the assessment process, as mandated by EAA, Section 12(1)(c).


Tables


Table 1. Mclean Lake Review Process Chronology

Date Action/decision Comments

1994 Original application submitted Jan 1995 LARC decision Application denied May 1997 Second application submitted (97-0073) Application to LARC to acquire land for the

purpose of developing a gravel quarry and batch plant. The area is outside the McLean lake quarry area and is zoned Open Space.

Sept. 1997 City responds to application City cannot approve application at that time due to 1) EBA report on gravel resource potential not yet reviewed by City; and 2) appropriate zoning not in place to allow for issuance of approvals for quarry. City recommended deferral until Feb 1998 when a clear decision will be made on future land use in the area.

Sept 9,1997 LARC meeting – 97-0073 LARC recommended deferral until OCP adopted

May 21, 2002 Application 2002-117 (quarry and batch plant) and application 2002-139 (storage area)

TC re-applies for lease with purchase option to relocate batch plant, develop quarry etc. Area totals approximately 9 hectares. Following OCP designation of area as Natural Resource that includes quarrying activities, TC reapplied. Application was scheduled to be reviewed at August 14 LARC meeting.

May 28 2002 Neighbouring property owners and other interested parties contacted re: application

Deadline for comments was August 14, 2002

August 14 2002 LARC meeting LARC defers application for quarry site pending approval by City of the Official Community Plan. City indicated this should take place in fall 2002. City noted that area is recognized as an important aggregate resource; quarry operation would require area to be rezoned to Industrial Quarry prior to application being approved.


Date Action/decision Comments August 2002 Correspondence from LARC to

registered interveners (per LARC terms of reference)

Correspondence refers to two applications: 2002-0117 and 2002-0139 (0139 was for office/storage space in separate area – applicant decided to merge all activities into single application 0117. Interveners advised that appeals would be reviewed on case by case basis.

Oct. 15, 2002 OCP Adopted by City of Whitehorse Area identified as natural resource area in OCP; see Section 8.2 for Policies. Bylaw 2002-01 adopted.

July 7, 2003 Access Consulting retained by TC Access retained to prepare detailed project description and environmental assessment of the project in support of application. Application is for 4 ha area to develop permanent concrete batch plant and 8 ha area adjacent to batch plant for a quarry site.

July 28 2003 City zoning bylaw 2003-42 passed Where inconsistency, the most recent bylaw prevails; application conflicts with current bylaws, thus requires amendment to zoning

July 2003 Letter from McLean Lake Residents Association

MLRA seeks clarification on process to be followed to review the project

August 21 2003 Access meeting with KDFN (G. McKee)

Aug. 22 2003 YTG Lands and City joint response to McLean Lake Residents Association letter of July 2003

Outlines legislative responsibilities; Env. Assess. Act; Lands Act, Quarry regs, Municipal Act, OCP and zoning bylaws. Terms of Ref. LARC updated to reflect YEAA legislation

Sept. 24 2003 Access meeting with Klondike Snowmobile Association

Discussion of rerouting Trans-Canada trail

Dec 23 2003 Project Description and Environmental Assessment submitted by Access

Report submitted in support of both applications

Jan 13 2004 Copies of Project Description and EA distributed to interveners

Lands Branch distributes report for comment.

Jan 15 2004 Access meets with MLRA Meeting with R. Hall representing MLRA Feb 10 2004 Access meeting with KDFN Met with J. McKee (Lands, Policy and

Planning Br.) Feb 12 2004 LARC meeting to review Deferred until March 11/12 due to requests


Date Action/decision Comments Environmental Assessment Report by City and residents for additional time to

review report. Feb 24 2004 LARC and MLRA meeting March 2 2004 City of Whitehorse, Development

Review Committee meeting Committee recommends approval in principle; OCP policy 11.2.2 and 11.2.4 deferred to water license application. The area for the batch plant would need to be rezoned to Heavy Industrial; the quarry area would need to be rezoned to Industrial Quarry. Area is currently zoned Future Development and Country Residential 1.

March 6 2004 Correspondence MLRA Critique of Assessment report; Association formed in 1980 to unify the concerns of residents in the watershed.

March 10 2004 Access response to concerns raised March 11 2004 LARC meeting LARC recommended deferral of

application, subject to several actions being completed (draft screening report, completion of consultation period; City to compile summarizing substantive issues and clarifying position of OCP and zoning in relation to application). Draft screening report was to be circulated for review and comments were to be provided by August 20, 2004.

March 15 2004 Dept. Environment Comments from DOE submitted to Lands Branch as per environmental screening

May 31 2004 City submission re: OCP policy and Zoning considerations

Follow up to LARC decision to defer decision, City provided clarification around OCP policies and zoning

July 12 2004 Draft Screening Report Distributed to LARC members, applicant and interveners; request that comments be provided by August 20 2004.

July 27 2004 Public notification of LARC process Public notified in the local newspapers (notice placed for about 1 month) and signage posted at the site.

Aug.20 – Dec.9 2004

Public comments on LARC screening process


Date Action/decision Comments Sept. 9 2004 LARC meeting LARC defers application pending more

information on how alternate gravel sources were identified, cumulative effects and hydrological assessment. LARC considers obtaining legal advice whether they have met the requirements under the legislation; LARC recommended deferral until December 9.

November 4 2004

Second Draft Screening report Advises that screening report will be reviewed on December 9 2004. Comments to be submitted by Dec. 8.

November 26 Report from O. Quinn (hydrogeologist) Report on McLean Lake basin recharge estimation

December 9 2004

LARC meeting LARC reviewed and accepted the screening report prepared by Lands Branch and authorized the applicant to proceed to the City for approvals and rezoning process. Once City approvals are obtained, YTG will proceed with lease and Agreement for Sale, based on the appropriate mitigations.

Jan 18 2005 Screening Report- YEAA YTG issues Screening Report: concludes project not likely to cause significant adverse effects (16 (1) a

February 15 2005

No appeals to LARC decision; LARC authorizes applicant to proceed in obtaining City approvals

March 2005 Zoning application submitted to City April 2005 MLRA letter to City MLRA requests City work with YTG to

identify alternative quarry sites to Sleeping Giant site, and develop a more coordinated approach to quarry development in City.

May 2 2005 Rezoning application postponed Application postponed on recommendation from City Planning Dept. to fold application into broader zoning bylaw; subsequently bylaw was amended to exclude quarrying areas. Natural Resource designation changed to Future Development.

March 21, 2006 Kwanlin Dun letter to YTG KDFN letter discusses inadequacies in EA


Date Action/decision Comments and participation at LARC

March 27 2006 City defers zoning decision Zoning bylaw including the rezoning for applicant deferred until completion of an independent assessment of review process.

April 19 2006 YTG response to letter Response speaks to LARC process and KDFN consultation and information being provided to KDFN throughout review process. Encourage KD to continue to remain in touch with City Planning dept.

June 2006 City engages Gartner Lee to conduct independent assessment of process

June 29 2006 Second zoning application submitted to City


Table 2. McLean Lake Project Issues Summary

Issue Raised Type of Issue Within EA

Scope? Response/Proposed Mitigation Notes

Project Footprint - proposed area larger

than development - impacts to

recreational land use

Environmental

Yes Development will create a 0.007% increase in disturbance of the resource extraction and industrial footprint in the watershed. Buffers maintained around recreational areas (accounts for larger project area than what will be disturbed). Trails relocated.

Addressed in EA Report and Screening Report.

Buffer Zones Environmental Yes OCP requires 30 m setback from riparian zones, however, proponent will maintain 150m from waterbodies. Project will maintain 300 m buffer from area of development, with exception of applicant’s residence (proponent is prepared to sign caveat regarding this issue). Lease agreement may stipulate surveying of buffer zones.


Air quality – impacts from vehicles

and batch plant, fugitive dust emissions

Environmental Yes Batch plant operations will not produce chemical emissions and will not require reporting to National Pollutant Releases Inventory. Vehicles should be in good repair, emissions not expected to increase considerably. Concrete will be stored in sealed containers. Road watering, dust suppression application and dust reduction equipment will minimize fugitive dust emissions.


Water Quality -drinking water sources, protection of aquatic habitat

Environmental Yes Use of settling ponds to remove suspended solids from gravel washing. Concrete wash water will be stored and will not be released to surface water or ground. Wash water will be recycled. Water quality parameters for cooper, aluminum, total coliforms and E. Coli will be enforced as part



of quarry permit. Monitoring of settling ponds will be required, proponent may be required to line or redesign the ponds if it is determined water is being released.

Water Quantity -concerns raised regarding lowering of water table, McLean Lake and McLean Creek due to groundwater extraction

Environmental Yes A desktop hydrological/hydrogeological assessment determined that the water use of the proposed development is not expected to have a significant effect on the water levels of McLean Lake and McLean Creek. Quarry lease will stipulate water level monitoring in well. If government determines groundwater consumption is unsustainable, proponent required to submit plan for approval proposing water conservations measures or identification of alternate water sources. Further studies may be required prior to issuance of development permit.

Addressed in EA Report and Screening Report. Adequacy of hydrological/ hydrogeological assessment to predict impacts to McLean Lake watershed questioned by interveners.

Hydrological/hydrogeological assessment – adequacy and conformance with OCP

OCP Conformance

No The proponent consulted YTG, Lands and the City of Whitehorse in the early stages of the environmental assessment to discuss requirements for a hydrological/hydrogeological study. All parties agreed that a desktop study was adequate, as a single proponent should not be responsible for a complete hydrological/hydrogeological assessment of the McLean Lake watershed due to the magnitude and cost associated with a detailed study. (Assessment required as per policy 11.2.4 of the Official Community Plan (OCP)). City suggests that the proponent should not be entirely responsible for a complete hydrogeological assessment of the McLean Lake watershed. Responsibility and funding for further studies to be determined.


Cumulative Effects Environmental Yes Proponent will be required to implement progressive reclamation. RA determined cumulative effects not likely to be significant considering overall mitigation proposed and the fact Ear Lake batch plant being relocated within special scope of assessment.

Rationale of determination of no significant cumulative impacts questioned by MLRA and KFDN.

Project Alternatives Environmental

Yes Screening report references OCP process for designation of “Natural Resources” in Whitehorse. Proponent states alternative sites were considered and current site was chosen based on access and economic factors (LARC Dec. 2004 minutes) RA did not require other matters to be considered. Consistent with EAA, Section 12(1)(e).

Debate of whether OCP process itself can be considered as project alternative assessment. MLRA and KFDN do not believe OCP process adequate.

Increased erosion Environmental Yes Erosion control measures will be implemented such as development of run-off catchment areas during construction activities. Quarry area will be cleared in stages to avoid erosion. Mitigation will be addressed in terms and conditions of quarry permit.


Fuel Handling and Storage Environmental Yes Fuels, lubricants properly stored. Spill contingency plan submitted outlining steps in the event of a spill. Proponent required to meet Yukon Special Waste Regulations, the Environment Act. Standard fuel storage and handling procedures will be included in Lease Agreement.


Chemical Storage and Handling

Environmental Yes Chemicals stored in sealed containers to prevent spillage and dust generation. Spill contingency plan submitted outlining steps in the event of a spill. Proponent required to meet Yukon Special Waste Regulations, the Environment Act.


Fire Prevention Environmental Health & Safety

Yes No

A fire safety place will be in place prior to the extraction of gravel.



Rare wetland plants Environmental Yes Wetland areas will be protected as part of the riparian zone. Also subject to Fisheries Act. Dust mitigation measures proposed will reduce impacts to wetlands.


Reclamation and closure Environmental Yes Pit Development Plan submitted outlining reclamation. Proponent required to submit Final Closure Plan prior to obtaining quarry lease. Revegetation or erosion control addressed in terms and conditions of Quarry lease and the Final Reclamation Plan.


Fisheries Resources Environmental Yes There will be no direct surface water extraction and vegetated buffers will be maintained. Sedimentation ponds will be used to contain wash water. Wash water will be recycled. Undertaking is subject to Waters Act and the Fisheries Act.


Visible impacts of development

Aesthetic No Disturbance will be limited to west side of site. Rationale questioned by KDFN.

Increased noise from traffic / operations

Environmental / Socio- economic

Yes Proponent will maintain topographic and vegetation buffers. Proponent required to adhere to Maintenance Bylaw 92-60. Vehicles to be kept in good repair.


Increased traffic along McLean Lake Road

Health and Safety No The McLean Lake Road is currently used as a haul road, servicing eight other quarries in the area. Increased traffic associated with this operation will result in an additional 0-15 round trips/day. Public road – users must follow current traffic regulations.

Archeological/heritage resources

Socio-Economic Yes Heritage Assessment completed – heritage sites are located within buffer zone and will not be disturbed. Protection of heritage and archeological sites will be addressed in terms and conditions of the quarry lease permit.




Impacts to recreational value Socio-economic Yes Areas of main recreational use will not be disturbed. Portion of trail will be relocated. Buffers will be maintained to allow for use in current recreational areas.

Addressed in EA Report and Screening Report

Reducing adjacent development potential

Economic No Development consistent with OCP.

Decreased property values Economic No Not within EA scope. Similar activities occurring in the area, with eight other quarries currently operating.


Maintaining buffers between trails

Environmental Yes Minimum 10 m buffer between trails and roads will be maintained.

Spatial Scope of assessment Environmental Yes Spatial scope was determined by RA and included the Maclean Creek Watershed. This scope was used for determination of cumulative effects.

Spatial scope of assessment questioned.

Monitoring Environmental Yes Proponent intends to monitor water quality throughout operations. Quarry lease will stipulate water level monitoring in well.

As no water licence will likely be required, water quality monitoring requirements and enforcement questioned.

Consultation Process Related Yes LARC process and Environmental Screening process viewed as forum for public consultation.

Zoning Issues Zoning No OCP designates area “natural resource”. Currently zoned future development would require rezoning to Industrial Quarry (IQ)

Discussed in Screening Report. Will be addressed further in re-zoning application process.

Documents

McLean Lake Process Review Phase I Reportww3.whitehorse.ca/Planning/reports/McLean-Phase-1-Report.pdfMcLean Lake Process Review Prepared for The City of Whitehorse September 2006 Reference: