The Government of Canada is committed to providing safe, clean drinking water in all First Nations communities, and to ensuring that wastewater services in all First Nations communities meet acceptable effluent quality standards. As part of this commitment, the Government announced the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan (FNWWAP). The plan funds the construction and renovation of water and wastewater facilities, operator training, and public health activities related to water and wastewater on reserves. It also provided for a national, independent assessment – The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems – which will inform the Government’s future, long-term investment strategy. This assessment was also recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

The purpose of the National Assessment is to define the current deficiencies and the operational needs of water and wastewater systems, identify the long-term water and wastewater needs of each community and recommend sustainable, long-term infrastructure development strategies.

The objectives of the National Assessment are to:

• Identify which upgrades will be required for existing public systems to meet INAC’s Level of Service Standards; INAC’s Protocol for Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities; INAC’s Protocol for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal in First Nations Communities; and applicable provincial regulations, codes, and standards
  
  
• Complete the Annual Inspection, Risk Assessment and Asset Condition Reporting Systems (ACRS) assessment for water and wastewater assets
  
  
• Conduct an overall community serviceability assessment of private, on-site communal and/or central systems
  
  
• Prepare Class “D” cost estimates for each of the communities visited. Class “D” estimates are preliminary, and are based on available site information. They indicate the approximate magnitude of the cost of the recommended actions, and they may be used to develop long-term capital plans. In addition, these estimates may be used in preliminary discussions of proposed capital projects.

This assessment involved collecting background data and information about each community, undertaking a site visit, and preparing individual community reports for each participating First Nation. Neegan Burnside Ltd. and its sub-consultants conducted an assessment for each of the eight regions. This report summarizes the findings for the Yukon region.

1.1 Site Visits

Site visits in the Yukon Region were undertaken by personnel from Neegan Burnside Ltd. and sub-consultants, R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. These site visits were undertaken during September of 2009 and during June and July of 2010. Each visit included at least two team members. In addition to the consultant staff, additional participants including the Circuit Rider Trainer (CRT), an INAC Representative, an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) from Health Canada, and a Tribal Council Representative were invited to attend the site visits. The additional participants that were able to attend are identified in each community report.

After confirming the various components that the First Nation uses to provide water and wastewater services to the community (i.e. number and types of systems, piping, individual systems, etc.) along with population and future servicing needs (planned development and population growth), an assessment was carried out of the water and wastewater systems, as well as 5% of the individual systems.

1.2 Reporting

Individual Community Reports have been prepared for each First Nation. In cases where the First Nation consisted of more than one community located in geographically distinct areas, a separate report was prepared for each community. In the Yukon region, there was 100% participation from the 17 First Nations, which resulted in the preparation of 18 individual community reports. Figure 1.1 indicates the location of each First Nation visited as a part of this study.

The reports include an assessment of existing communal systems and existing individual systems, identification of needs to meet departmental, federal and provincial protocols and guidelines, and an assessment of existing servicing of the community along with projections of population and flows for future servicing for the 10 year period. Costing for the recommendations to meet departmental protocol, federal and provincial guidelines, and an evaluation of servicing alternatives along with life cycle costing for each feasible alternative are also included in each report.

An annual water inspection, risk evaluation and ACRS inspection was completed for each system and are included in the Appendices of each report.

Figure 1.1 - Yukon First Nations Visited

Detailed description of Figure 1.1

The Yukon region includes 17 First Nations. There are 24 water systems (14 First Nation systems and 10 Municipal Type Agreements) and 11 wastewater systems (2 First Nation systems and 9 Municipal Type Agreements).

A water or wastewater system considered a First Nation system, consists of INAC-funded assets, and serves five or more residences or public facilities. A Municipal Type Agreement (MTA), on the other hand, is when First Nations are supplied with treated water from or send their wastewater to a nearby municipality or neighbouring First Nation or corporate entity as outlined in a formal agreement between the two parties.

The First Nation communities’ populations range from 44 to 892 people, and household sizes range from 1.7 to 4.3 people per unit (ppu). The total number of homes is 1,697, and the average household size in the Yukon region is 3.1 ppu.

2.1 Water Servicing

There are a total of 24 water systems serving 17 First Nations. The 24 water systems include:

• 10 systems that receive their water supply through a Municipal Type Agreement (MTA)
• 11 groundwater systems
• 1 groundwater under direct influence (GUDI) of surface water system
• 2 surface water systems.

For water distribution, the 24 systems include:

• 10 distribution systems that are maintained through a Municipal Type Agreement (MTA)
• 13 distribution systems that are maintained by the First Nation
• 1 system that does not have a distribution system (First Nation members obtain water directly from the pumphouse in buckets).

The following is a summary of the level of service being provided to the homes within the Yukon region:

• 31% of the homes (521) are piped
• 51% of the homes (871) are on truck delivery
• 18% of the homes (305) are on private wells.

The following table provides an overview of the water systems by system classification, source type, treatment type and storage type. In general, the treatment system classification reflects the complexity of the treatment. Treatment systems labeled as “Small System” and “Level I” are groundwater systems, and systems labeled “Level II” are surface water systems. The distribution classification reflects the size of the community being serviced. The classifications follow the regulations for the Yukon.

Table 2.1 - Water Overview

2.2 Wastewater Servicing

There are a total of 11 wastewater systems serving 10 First Nations. The remaining seven First Nations are serviced solely by individual septic systems.

For wastewater treatment, the 11 systems include:

• 9 wastewater systems are provided treatment through a Municipal Type Agreement (MTA)
• 2 First Nation wastewater treatment systems consisting of lagoons.

For wastewater collection, the 11 systems include:

• 8 wastewater collection systems that are maintained through a Municipal Type Agreement (MTA)
• 3 wastewater collection systems that are maintained by the First Nation.

The following is a summary of the level of service being provided to the homes within the Yukon Region:

• 28% of the homes (478) are piped
• 23% of the homes (382) are on truck haul
• 49% of the homes (837) are serviced by individual septic systems and shoot-outs.

The following table provides an overview of the wastewater systems by system classification and treatment type:

Table 2.2 - Wastewater Overview

3.1 Per Capita Consumption and Plant Capacity

Historical flow records were available for approximately 15% of the First Nation communal water systems, including two Municipal Type Agreements. The average per capita demand for systems with trucked delivery is 114 L/c/d, and the average for systems with piped delivery is 300 L/c/d. [Note 1]

For systems with no available flow data, an average per capita demand of 325 L/c/d was used for piped water and 90 L/c/d for trucked water to evaluate the systems.

Out of the 24 water systems, 5 have piped service only, 13 have trucked service only, and the remaining 6 have a combination of trucked and piped service. The range of per capita flow is outlined in Table 3.1.

Historical flow data for wastewater was not available. Therefore, to evaluate the ability of the existing infrastructure to meet the current and projected needs, an average daily flow was calculated based on the actual or assumed per capita water consumption, plus an infiltration allowance of 90 L/c/d for piped flow only.

The following figure provides a summary of the water and wastewater treatment capacities for the 17 First Nations:

• over capacity: the existing system is unable to meet the current needs
• at capacity: the existing system is able to meet the current needs
• available capacity: the existing system has sufficient capacity to meet more than the current needs
• not enough data: insufficient data to determine the actual system capacity.

Figure 3.1 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacities

Detailed description of Figure 3.1

The data collected shows that five water systems and two wastewater systems are operating at or beyond their estimated capacities. For plants identified as over capacity, the per capita demand is within typical values for the region, according to available records.

3.2 Distribution and Collection

The household size for the 17 First Nations ranges from 1.7 to 4.3 people per unit (ppu), with an average size of 3.1 ppu [Note 2]. The total number of piped connections in the region is 521 for water and 478 for wastewater. The average length per connection of watermain is 47 m. The average length per connection of sanitary main is 35 m.

As shown in the table and figures below, there is no real correlation between the size of the community and the length of pipe per connection. However, in some cases the data provided for watermains includes dedicated transmission main lengths with no service connections and non-distribution mains (i.e. intake pipes, raw water pipes). As a result, the average length per connection is inflated, particularly for smaller communities where the additional pipe length is spread over a smaller number of connections.

The table below indicates the number of water and wastewater systems that have pipe lengths above and below 30 m/connection. It should be noted that this information was not available for all of the systems.

Figure 3.2 - Water Distribution: Average Pipe Length per Connection

Detailed description of Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3 - Wastewater Collection: Average Pipe Length per Connection

Detailed description of Figure 3.3

3.3 Water Risk Evaluation

A risk assessment has been completed for each water system according to INAC’s Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines. Each facility is ranked in risk according to the following categories: Water Source, Design, Operation (and Maintenance), Reporting and Operators. The overall risk score is a weighted average of the component risk scores.

Each of the five risk categories, as well as the overall risk level of the entire system is ranked numerically from 1 to 10. Low, medium and high risks are defined as follows:

• Low Risk (1.0 to 4.0): These are systems that operate with minor deficiencies. Low-risk systems usually meet the water quality parameters that are specified by the appropriate Canadian Guidelines for drinking water (in particular, the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ)).
• Medium Risk (4.1 to 7.0): These are systems with deficiencies, which— individually or combined— pose a medium risk to the quality of water and to human health. These systems do not generally require immediate action, but the deficiencies should be corrected to avoid future problems.
• High Risk (7.1 to 10.0): These are systems with major deficiencies, which— individually or combined— pose a high risk to the quality of water. These deficiencies may lead to potential health and safety or environmental concerns. They could also result in water quality advisories against drinking the water (such as, but not limited to, boil water advisories), repetitive non-compliance with guidelines, and inadequate water supplies. Once systems are classified under this category, regions and First Nations must take immediate corrective action to minimize or eliminate deficiencies.

Regional Risk Summary:

Of the 24 water systems inspected:

• 6 are categorized as high overall risk
• 5 are categorized as medium overall risk
• 13 are categorized as low overall risk.

The 13 low-risk systems include 8 Municipal Type Agreement systems, 3 groundwater systems and 2 surface water systems.

Neighbouring municipalities operate and maintain all ten of the Municipal Type Agreement systems.

The table in Appendix E.1 summarizes the correlation between component risk and overall risk. In general, Municipal Type Agreement systems have the lowest risk, followed by systems with a surface water source, a groundwater source and, finally, the system with a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) source source.

Figure 3.4 provides a geographical representation of the final risk for the water systems that were inspected.

3.3.1 Overall System Risk by Source

The following table summarizes the overall system risk by water source. It is assumed that Municipal Type Agreement systems typically have low-risk water supplies because they operate in accordance with territorial legislation. Groundwater systems also tend to be low-risk systems. More complicated surface water systems, on the other hand, typically have higher-risk water supplies. However, in the Yukon, both surface water systems are low risk, whereas 5 of 11 groundwater systems are high risk.

3.3.2 Overall System Risk by Treatment Classification

There is no clear pattern between the “System Classification Level” and the “Overall System Risk.”

Figure 3.4 - Yukon Water System Risk

Detailed description of Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5 - Risk Profile Based on Water Treatment System Classification

Detailed description of Figure 3.5

3.3.3 Overall Risk by Number of Connections

In the Yukon region, there is no apparent correlation between the number of connections and the overall risk.

3.3.4 Component Risks: Water

The overall risk is comprised of five component risks: water source, design, operation, reporting and operator. Each of these component risk factors is discussed below.

Figure 3.6 - Water: Risk Profile Based on Risk Components

Detailed description of Figure 3.6

3.3.5 Component Risk - Water: Source

The risk associated with the source has a mean score of 3.4. The mean source risk score by type of source is:

• groundwater at 3.9
• groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) at 9.0
• surface water at 8.0
• Municipal Type Agreement (MTA) at1.3.

The data indicates that systems that rely on surface water or GUDI generally have a higher component risk score than systems that rely on groundwater. As a result, the risk formula automatically assigns a higher base risk to these types of systems.

The following figure identifies drivers that contribute to source risk scores.

Figure 3.7 - Source Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.7

3.3.6 Component Risk - Water: Design

The risk associated with the design has a mean score of 4.2. The mean design risk score by type of source is:

• groundwater at 5.9
• groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) at 8.0
• surface water at 3.0
• Municipal Type Agreement (MTA) at 2.2.

There is a higher design risk associated with groundwater and GUDI systems because these systems do not have sufficient treatment to ensure that they meet bacteriological, aesthetic and operational guidelines. As part of the multi-barrier approach to water treatment, chlorination is now required for all water systems. Typically, a groundwater system has an increased design risk if it does not have disinfection systems in place, or if there is insufficient contact time to ensure that the chlorination process is adequate.

There are several key drivers of the region’s design risk scores, including:

• failure to meet the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ)
• exceeding the GCDWQ Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) for bacteria
• no disinfection system in place or a disinfection system that is not being used
• no appropriate treatment in place to meet INAC’s Protocol requirements
• systems approaching or exceeding design capacity
• systems not having appropriate waste management.

Figure 3.8 - Design Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.8

It should be noted that the design risk drivers in red result in the entire water system being given a high risk score, regardless of all of the other component risk scores.

3.3.7 Component Risk - Water: Operation

The risk associated with operation has a mean score of 4.6. The mean operation risk score by type of source is:

• groundwater at 6.0
• groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) at 8.0
• surface water at 3.0
• Municipal Type Agreement (MTA) at 3.1.

Areas that increase risk include operators not maintaining records, operators not having or using approved Operation & Maintenance manuals, and operators not scheduling and performing maintenance activities. Increased effort focused on these areas would result in lowering both the operation risk component and the overall risk scores.

There are several key drivers of the region’s operation risk scores, including:

• failure to meet the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ)
• exceeding the GCDWQ Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) for bacteria
• maintenance logs being inadequately maintained
• lack of general system maintenance
• Emergency Response Plan not in place
• Operations & Maintenance manual not available or not in use.

Figure 3.9 - Operation Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.9

Figure 3.10 - Summary of Findings: Water Systems Operational Practices

Detailed description of Figure 3.10

3.3.8 Component Risk - Water: Reporting

The risk associated with reporting has a mean score of 5.7. The minimal reporting required of systems serviced by Municipal Type Agreements is reflected in the mean risk score of 1.9. The mean reporting risk score by type of source is:

• groundwater at 9.3
• groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) at 8.0
• surface water at 3.5
• Municipal Type Agreements (MTA) at 1.9.

Poor record keeping and inconsistent records are the main risk drivers for all systems (71% and 93%). For systems with a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system in place, an additional driver is that the instruments are not being calibrated to ensure that the information being recorded is accurate (21%).

An important consideration is that the systems were evaluated based on the requirements for monitoring and reporting as set out in INAC’s Protocol. Typically, the operators’ monitoring and reporting do not meet these requirements. Operator awareness and training could have a significant impact on these risk scores.

Figure 3.11 - Reporting Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.11

3.3.9 Component Risk - Water: Operator

The risk associated with the operator has a mean score of 1.8. Operator Risk has the lowest overall component risk score for all types of systems. The mean operator risk score by type of source is:

• groundwater at 2.4
• groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) at 1.0
• surface water at 1.0
• Municipal Type Agreement (MTA) at 1.5.

The extent to which existing systems have fully certified primary and backup operators is presented in Table 3.5. Of the 14 systems that require a certified operator for the water treatment system, 64% did not have a fully certified primary operator and 86% did not have a fully certified backup operator. Of the 13 systems that require a certified operator for the distribution system, 23% did not have a fully certified primary operator and 69% did not have a fully certified backup operator.

Those factors which frequently contribute to increased operator risk are identified in Figure 3.12. A lack of certification, lack of training and the lack of primary or backup operator are common drivers that increase operator risk.

Figure 3.12 - Operator Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.12

3.4 Wastewater Risk Evaluation

A risk assessment was completed for each wastewater system according to INAC’s Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines. The risk of each wastewater facility is ranked according to the following categories: effluent receiver, design, operation and maintenance, reporting, and operators. The overall risk score is a weighted average of the component risk scores.

Each of the five risk categories, as well as the overall risk level of the entire system, is ranked numerically from 1 to 10. A risk ranking of 1.0 to 4.0 represents a low risk, a risk ranking of 4.1 to 7.0 represents a medium risk, and a risk ranking of 7.1 to 10.0 represents a high risk.

Of the 11 wastewater systems inspected:

• 1 is categorized as medium overall risk
• 10 are categorized as low risk.

Appendix E.2 provides a table that summarizes the correlation between the component risk and the overall risk.

Figure 3.13 provides a geographical representation of the final risk for the wastewater systems that were inspected.

Figure 3.13 - Yukon Wastewater System Risk

Detailed description of Figure 3.13

3.4.1 Overall System Risk by Treatment Classification

In the Yukon region there is one Small System, one Level I system, and nine Municipal Type Agreements (MTAs). It was assumed that municipalities operate their systems in accordance with territorial legislation, which results in low-risk scores for MTAs. All of the MTAs are low risk. One of the two First Nation communal wastewater systems is medium risk.

The following figure demonstrates the correlation between the mean overall system risk and the classification level of the treatment system.

Figure 3.14 - Risk Profile Based on Wastewater Treatment System Classification

Detailed description of Figure 3.14

3.4.2 Overall System Risk by Number of Connections

In the Yukon region, there is no clear pattern between the overall system risk and the number of connections.

3.4.3 Component Risks: Wastewater

The overall risk is comprised of five component risks: effluent receiver, design, operation, reporting and operators. Each of these component risk factors is discussed below.

Figure 3.15 - Wastewater: Risk Profile Based on Risk Components

Detailed description of Figure 3.15

3.4.4 Component Risk - Wastewater: Effluent Receiver

The risk associated with the effluent receiver has a mean score of 1.2. As the figure below illustrates, there are no concerns regarding effluent receivers in the region.

Figure 3.16 - Effluent Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.16

3.4.5 Component Risk - Wastewater: Design

The risk associated with the design has a mean score of 1.7. One of the 11 systems has a medium risk.

There are several key drivers of the design component risk scores in the region, including:

• inappropriate treatment processes
• problems with system reliability
• system lacks the flexibility to meet future growth
• system has exceeded the design capacity
• inappropriate waste management.

Figure 3.17 - Design Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.17

3.4.6 Component Risk - Wastewater: Operation

The risk associated with the operation has a mean risk score of 3.4. All wastewater systems have a low risk score with the exception of one of the First Nation operated systems which has a high risk score of 10.

There are several key drivers of the operation risk in the region, including:

• inadequate maintenance logs
• general maintenance not being adequately performed
• Emergency Response Plans not in place or not being used
• Operation & Maintenance manuals not available or not being used.

Figure 3.18 - Operation Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.18

3.4.7 Component Risk - Wastewater: Reporting

The risk associated with reporting has a mean score of 1.3. All wastewater systems have a low risk score for reporting.

There key drivers of the reporting risk in the region are:

• inconsistent record keeping
• inconsistent records for key parameters.

Figure 3.19 - Reporting Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.19

3.4.8 Component Risk - Wastewater: Operator

The risk associated with the operator has a mean score of 1.8. All wastewater systems have a low risk score with the exception of one of the First Nation operated wastewater systems which has a high risk score of 10.

The extent to which existing wastewater systems have fully certified primary and backup operators is presented in Table 3.6. Of the two systems which require a certified operator for the wastewater treatment system, both systems did not have a fully certified primary operator or a fully certified backup operator. Of the 2 systems which require a certified operator for the collection system, both systems did not have a fully certified primary operator or a fully certified backup operator.

Those factors which frequently contribute to increased wastewater operator risk are identified in Figure 3.20. A lack of certification, lack of training and the lack of primary or backup operator are common drivers that increase operator risk.

Figure 3.20 - Operators Risk Drivers

Detailed description of Figure 3.20

3.5 Plans

Information was collected regarding the availability of various documents, including Source Water Protection Plans (SWPP), Maintenance Management Plans (MMP), and Emergency Response Plans (ERP). The following tables provide a summary of the percentages of First Nations that have plans in place:

3.5.1 Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP)

Source water protection planning is one component of a multi-barrier approach to providing safe drinking water. Source Water Protection Plans seek to identify threats to the water source. They also establish policies and practices to prevent contamination of the water source and to ensure that the water service provider is equipped to take corrective action in the event of water contamination. Source water protection is appropriate for groundwater and surface water sources.

For the Yukon region, 64% of the systems have a Source Water Protection Plan in place.

3.5.2 Maintenance Management Plans (MMP)

Maintenance Management Plans are intended to improve the effectiveness of maintenance activities. MMP’s focus on planning, scheduling and documenting preventative maintenance activities and identify unscheduled maintenance efforts to be documented by the operator. The plans represent a change from reactive to proactive thinking, and—when executed properly—help the operator optimize maintenance spending, minimize service disruption, and extend asset life.

For the Yukon region, 29% of the First Nation water systems have a Maintenance Management Plan in place.

3.5.3 Emergency Response Plans (ERP)

Emergency Response Plans (ERPs) are intended to be a quick reference to assist operators and other stakeholders in managing and responding to emergency situations. Emergency Response Plans should be in place for both water and wastewater systems. They include key contact information for those who should be notified and who may be of assistance in case of emergency (agencies, contractors, suppliers, etc.), and they provide standard communication and response protocols. Emergency Response Plans recommend corrective actions for “foreseeable” emergencies, and they establish methodologies for addressing unforeseen situations. They are essentially the last potential “barrier” in a multi-barrier approach to protecting the drinking water supply and the natural environment, and they provide the last opportunity to mitigate damages.

21% of the water systems and 18% of the wastewater systems have an Emergency Response Plan in place.

4.1 Upgrade to Meet Protocol: Water

In 2006, INAC began to develop a series of Protocol documents for centralised and decentralised water and wastewater systems in First Nations communities. The Protocols contain standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of these systems.

One of the objectives of this study was to review the existing water and wastewater infrastructure and to identify the potential upgrade costs to meet INAC’s Protocols, and federal and provincial guidelines, standards and regulations. The total estimated construction cost for water system upgrades to meet the INAC Protocol is $9.3M.

Table 4.1 provides a breakdown of the estimated total capital costs. A separate line item is included for engineering and contigency. Figure 4.1 provides a comparison graph of each of the categories.

There are five water systems that may potentially have groundwater under the direct influence (GUDI) of surface water supplies. The upgrade costs for these systems have been estimated under the assumption that they will prove to be secure groundwater supplies, but further studies are recommended to confirm this assumption.

If the GUDI studies indicate that these supplies should be considered to be surface water rather than groundwater, then additional upgrade requirements will be necessary for these systems to meet INAC’s Protocol. It is estimated that, depending on system capacity and site indices, an additional $1.0 to $2.5 million will be required for each system that requires upgrading to surface water treatment.

Figure 4.1 - Breakdown of the Estimated Construction Costs to Meet Protocol: Water ($ - M)

Detailed description of Figure 4.1

The following lists provide a summary of the Protocol items for the three categories with the highest cumulative Protocol costs Treatment, Building, and Standby Power.

Treatment costs include:

• Providing spare chemical feed equipment.
• Providing spare disinfection equipment.
• Providing additional filter trains.
• Providing secondary containment for treatment chemicals.
• Providing specific treatment equipment (i.e. arsenic, manganese, etc.).
• Providing contact piping.
• Providing surge suppression/uninterruptible power supplies for critical electronic equipment.
• Upgrading the capacity of existing water treatment plant(s).

Building costs include:

• Installing blow offs on dead ends.
• Installing isolation valves.
• Looping distribution systems.
• Installing additional fire hydrants.
• Providing additional water trucks.
• Replacing cisterns.
• Replacing pipeline.

Standby Power costs include:

• Providing standby power.

Additional annual operations and maintenance costs, shown in Table 4.3, include costs that occur annually for items that are not currently being completed to meet protocols, such as calibrating monitoring equipment, additional sampling, cleaning the reservoir, and backup operator’s salary.

The total estimated cost, including construction and non-construction costs, for water system upgrades to meet the INAC Protocol is $10.6M. This excludes costs associated with potentially GUDI systems, which prove to be GUDI systems as discussed previously.

4.2 Upgrade to Meet Protocol: Wastewater

The total construction cost estimate for the two wastewater systems for upgrades to meet INAC’s Protocol is $0.6 M. Below is a list of the specific needs of the systems, the number of systems impacted by the upgrades, and the total cost for each need.

Figure 4.2 - Breakdown of the Estimated Construction Costs to Meet Protocol: Wastewater ($ - M)

Detailed description of Figure 4.2

Additional annual operations and maintenance costs, as shown in Table 4.6, include costs that occur annually, for items that are not currently being completed to meet protocols, such as calibrating monitoring equipment, additional sampling, and backup operator’s salary.

4.3 Upgrade Cost Summary

Table 4.7 provides a summary of the upgrade costs for systems to meet INAC’s Protocol, and federal and territorial guidelines and regulations.

The following tables present a breakdown of the estimated upgrade costs to meet INAC’s Protocols, broken down by overall risk level.

4.4 Asset Condition and Reporting System Needs

ACRS (Asset Condition and Reporting System) inspections were completed for all water and wastewater related assets. In order to avoid duplicating the “Upgrade to Protocol” needs identified previously, ACRS needs were limited to required repairs of existing facilities, and any upgrade costs were not included.

The following two tables (Tables 4.10 and 4.11) provide a summary of the required repairs, broken down by asset for both water and wastewater:

4.5 Community Servicing

An analysis was completed to evaluate future servicing alternatives for a 10-year design period. The analysis considers a variety of alternatives, including expanding existing systems, developing new systems, establishing local Municipal Type Agreements (if applicable), and using individual systems.

A theoretical operation and maintenance cost was developed for each alternative, along with a 30-year life-cycle cost. The cost of the upgrades that are necessary for systems to meet INAC Protocol is included in the new servicing cost, if appropriate (i.e. for new servicing alternatives that include continued use of the existing system).

The following table summarizes the capital cost and the total estimated operation & maintenance cost for the recommended servicing alternatives:

The evaluation of future servicing included continuing to service the existing population with the same level of service that was currently in place and evaluating the options for providing service to the future 10 year growth for the community. Existing servicing includes piped, trucked and individual servicing.

It was found that, for the most part, extending piped water and wastewater servicing for the future growth is the most cost-effective solution. This solution assumes that future homes will be constructed in a more compact subdivision setting adjacent to the existing serviced area. If some residents choose to build homes in outlying areas, individual servicing or truck haul may be more appropriate. Initial information provided by First Nations suggests that their preferred servicing strategy is development in the core.

All 17 First Nations in the Yukon Region were visited during the completion of this project. The 24 water systems include 12 groundwater systems, 2 surface water systems and 10 Municipal Type Agreements. The 11 wastewater systems include 2 lagoons and 9 Municipal Type Agreements.

The majority of the First Nations are self-governing. These communities receive support services from the Yukon Territorial Government, and their water and wastewater systems appear to be well maintained. Many of the communities are located adjacent to a non-First Nation community, which leads to the development of shared servicing.

For water systems, operator risk is the lowest of the component risks. However, it is important to provide ongoing training for operators to ensure that all systems are operated and maintained by trained/certified operators and to ensure that operators are monitoring and record keeping in accordance with INAC’s Protocol.

The design, operation, and reporting risk components are medium or high for 50% of the water systems. Addressing the concerns associated with these components would have the greatest impact on reducing the overall risk.

For wastewater systems, the operation, the reporting and the operator risk components are high for both systems. Providing operators for these two systems would reduce the overall risk.