Whitehorse dam relicensing gets the OK, but with new terms and conditions
The Yukon and federal governments say Yukon Energy's licence for its Whitehorse hydroelectric dam should be renewed for another 25 years — but they've also laid out some new terms and conditions or revised some that were recommended by environmental assessors.
In a 66-page document issued this week, the decision bodies for the project — Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and the territorial government — agreed that the ongoing operation of the dam "will result in, or is likely to result in, significant adverse effects," primarily to chinook salmon, First Nations wellness, fish habitat, wetlands and heritage resources, among other things.
Yukon Energy submitted a proposal to the territory's assessment board in late 2023 to relicense the dam. Until then, the 67-year-old facility had never been scrutinized by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB), which did not exist when the facility's licence last came up for renewal in 2000.
The relicensing application came at a time when Yukon River chinook salmon stocks have been in steady and dramatic decline. First Nations and environmentalists argue that the dam, by obstructing access to upstream spawning grounds, or even killing fish with its turbines, is a significant part of the problem.
YESAB's report, issued earlier this year, acknowledges those concerns.
"Adverse effects stemming from the project are likely to further deteriorate the already serious state of Yukon River chinook salmon and are likely to have much longer lasting effects," the report states, adding that examples could include the extinction of the species, loss of First Nations' ceremonies and transfer of traditional knowledge.
Yukon Energy's current licence for the dam was set to expire next month. YESAB suggested the 25-year renewal be approved and made 39 recommendations, many of them focused on fish and wildlife, and Indigenous land use.
Those recommendations include coming up with plans to redesign the dam's fish ladder and how to make it more effective, developing a system to monitor fish passage at the Lewes control structure upstream, and that Yukon Energy launch a study into how the dam has long affected how First Nations people who use the land in the project area.
Board's recommendations 'did not go far enough'
In their decision this week, the federal and territorial governments accept most of the board's assessment, and its recommendations.
However, they also modified some of YESAB's recommended terms and conditions for the licence, "to ensure significant adverse project effects and adverse effects to Aboriginal and treaty rights are adequately mitigated."
"The terms and conditions related to chinook salmon recommended by the [YESAB] Designated Office did not go far enough to ensure that measures to reduce impacts to chinook salmon would in fact be implemented, especially in the short-term," the decision document reads.
"Additionally, multiple terms and conditions did not provide clear objectives for plans or monitoring, or specific timelines for the development and implementation of these items."
The governments altered the terms and conditions related to chinook and First Nation wellness to better address those concerns. Part of that includes a requirement to develop a traditional knowledge framework and to include traditional knowledge "within all plans and studies for the life of the project."
Yukon Energy must also provide a schedule for when some of its plans and projects related to chinook salmon and First Nation wellness will be developed and implemented.
Other new conditions include a requirement for Yukon Energy to immediately "improve fish passage and reduce entrainment mortality" until a long-term plan to address those things is in place.
Yukon Energy must also begin an annual monitoring program to determine fish passage and mortality at the dam, provide cultural awareness training to all staff "that interact with salmon and traditional knowledge," and issue public reports annually about fish monitoring and mortality, among other things.
"With these modifications ... Decision Bodies are satisfied that project effects related to chinook salmon and First Nation wellness are sufficiently mitigated," the decision report reads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
$30B in new investments needed to meet Canada's critical mineral demand: report
Protesters and community members chant and wave signs, as they listen to speakers during a demonstration opposing Bill 5, outside the Ontario Legislature at Queen's Park in Toronto, Monday, June 2, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Cole Burston TORONTO — A newly released report estimates Canada will need at least $30 billion in new capital investments by 2040 if it wants to meet domestic demand for the critical minerals key to a green economy transition. But the Canadian Climate Institute's report says cutting back on environmental safeguards and Indigenous consultation to speed up those projects is likely to backfire. The report released Thursday says those cutbacks can lead to delays later on, due to community opposition or litigation. The think tank's latest report comes as the federal government, along with Ontario and British Columbia, face major pushback from First Nations and environmental groups to legislation intended to speed up mining project approvals. The report says Canadian governments should support Indigenous participation and reduce environmental risks as part of efforts to reduce regulatory delays. It says Canada has a big opportunity to capitalize on the surging domestic and global demand for critical minerals to build the batteries, solar panels and electric vehicles required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It estimates domestic demand alone for six key critical minerals, including lithium and copper, will reach $16 billion by 2040 if Canada keep up its climate policies, with almost half of that coming from EV manufacturers. To meet that demand, the think tank estimates Canadian mining projects will need a total of $30 billion in capital investments, and even more if the industry wants to help satiate international demand too. The report says that's also likely a lowball figure since it excludes major cost overruns that often plague mining projects. The estimated domestic need 'vastly exceeds' current investment in the sector, which averaged about $2 billion per year from 2018 to 2023, the report said. The report suggests there's a role for governments to step in to support the sector with either equity investments or financial risk-sharing agreements. But it should not come at the expense of Indigenous consultation or environmental oversight, the authors say. 'Successful projects that are being developed fast are the ones that have participation from Indigenous communities, that have adhered to the highest environmental standard,' said co-author Marisa Beck, the think tank's clean growth research director. Critics say recently passed Bill 15 in B.C. and Bill 5 in Ontario gives those provinces sweeping powers to exempt mining projects from environmental oversight and undermines constitutional obligations to consult First Nations. The provincial governments disagree and say the legislation will help speed up approvals without sacrificing First Nations rights or environmental protections. Ottawa has also faced pushback to its legislation intended to speed up infrastructure approvals. The authors of Thursday's report declined to comment on the specifics of those legislative efforts, but it did put forward several policy recommendations. Governments should also support Indigenous communities exercising their right to self-determination and economic participation, such as through funding for Indigenous-led environmental assessments, the report says. Elsewhere, the report recommends provinces strengthen mining regulations to reduce environmental risks and liabilities, such as requiring producers to make their closure plans publicly available. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Jordan Omstead, The Canadian Press
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Sir John A. Macdonald statue back in view at Queen's Park after five years boarded up
TORONTO - The Sir John A. Macdonald statue outside the Ontario legislature is back in full view after spending the past five years in a box. The statue of Canada's first prime minister has been under hoarding since 2020, when it was vandalized with pink paint. The monument was one of many that were targeted across the country amid anti-racism protests and as Canadians grappled with the history of residential schools. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Macdonald is considered an architect of the country's notorious residential school system, which took Indigenous children from their families in an effort to assimilate them. Progressive Conservative and Liberal members of a non-partisan board of the legislative assembly agreed earlier this month on a motion to remove the hoarding after the statue is cleaned. Speaker Donna Skelly says she recognizes the sensitivities surrounding Macdonald and welcomes Ontarians to come and share their views peacefully. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
Ottawa Citizen
3 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Adam: Protests are supposed to make us uncomfortable. We don't need more rules restricting them
As city staff proceed with plans to draft an anti-protest bylaw — euphemistically called a 'vulnerable infrastructure bylaw' — then report back to council, it is important to examine how, lately, the City of Ottawa has been finding different ways to row back bedrock democratic principles of public engagement, free speech and the right to protest that are guaranteed to all citizens. Article content Article content The gradual, but steady erosion of basic rights under the guise of security or good governance should trouble all residents. Article content Article content Remember the Ottawa Police Services Board, which includes three city councillors? In violation of citizens' right to free speech, the board has given itself the power to censure what residents say. Those who wish to speak before the board, must first submit their remarks in writing ahead of time — all in the name of good governance, we are told. The policy is designed to silence critics and if the board doesn't like what's on your mind, you won't be heard. Article content Then you have the new security measures that turn city hall, the seat of local government, into something of a prohibited zone where visitors have to go through airport-like security checks, including metal detectors. Article content Ban protests while upholding them? Article content But the biggest anti-democratic hurdle council wants to impose on the city is the 'vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw,' or if you like, the bubble bylaw. The idea is to ban protests within 80 metres of 'social infrastructure' such as schools, places of worship, hospitals and long-term care facilities, because some people find them rather uncomfortable. City staff have nine months to craft this seemingly oxymoronic bylaw that, in the same breath, bans protests and upholds the right to protest. Article content Article content What is lost on our city council is that protests are indeed supposed to make people uncomfortable. If a society is comfortable in what it does, what policies governments adopt, what values underpin laws no matter how bad, nothing changes. Injustice, discrimination and marginalization become entrenched because the majority does not feel the agony of those on the margins. But when society is forced to look at itself, engage in self-reflection and be forced out of its comfort zone, that's when change occurs. Article content Article content The fight for civil rights everywhere was uncomfortable for many, who saw it as an affront. So was the fight for self-determination by countries around the world. Think of gay rights, Indigenous rights, and many others which could never have been won without unrelenting, uncomfortable and sometimes contentious protest. When labour unions go on protest, sometimes blocking streets or forcing road closures and delaying traffic, it is destructive to people's lives, but we live with it because we see the higher purpose. When people are denied their rights, whatever they may be, their only option is the fundamental right to protest. And it doesn't matter if others find it uncomfortable.
