A New Regulatory Regime for the Management of Yukon …€¦ · A New Regulatory Regime for the...

A New Regulatory Regime for the Management of Yukon Placer Mining

March 27, 2006 Prepared for Adaptive Management Workshop Whitehorse, Yukon

Outline

Proposed Regime – Chronology (3-8)Current Regime VS proposed Regime (9-23)Consultation Plans and TK (24-30)Understanding Placer Mining and Fish (31-40)Watershed Sensitivity and Habitat Suitability Vs Risk (41-51)Compliance and Action Level (52-61)Water Quality; What do we know (62-74)Aquatic Health; What do we know (75-108)

Proposed Regime – Chronology

New Placer Regime Chronology

Dec 2002 - DFO Minister announces elimination of Yukon Placer AuthorizationMay 2003 - Record of Agreement Signed and Steering Committee formed

Record of Agreement May 2003CYFN, Yukon & Canada (DFO)

The new Regime must:

recognize the importance of a sustainable placer industry and the importance of conservation of fish and fish habitat supporting fisheries

be achievable and science-based; incorporate experience and traditional knowledge

be responsive to area and topographical conditions

be ready for implementation by 2007


May 2005 - New Regime Framework Approved by Minister of DFODecember 2005 – Yukon Placer Secretariat established to complete & implement the Regime

Richard Hartmier Photo

Yukon Placer Secretariat - YPSRelationships Diagram

Licensing and Assessing Boards

YWB - YESAB

Public

Joint Placer Implementation

Committee JPIC

Yukon Placer SecretariatYPS

Implementation Management Group

IMG

DFO YG-EMR & Env.

CoreStaff

YG (1)DFO (1)CYFN (1)

Executive DirectorFN & Community LiaisonGIS/DB TechnicianOffice Co-coordinator

Placer Advisory Council

PAC

Mandated BoardsYFWMB–YSC –

RRC (s)

CYFN

First Nations


2006 – Development of draft Regime components – watershed authorizations, monitoring protocols, incorporation of Traditional Knowledge2006/2007 – Three phase consultation process2007 – Implementation of new Regime


Current Regime VS proposed Regime

Placer Activities

Land

Socio Economic

Water

Fish

Mining Land Use Operating Plan

Water Use License

Yukon Placer Authorization

EXISTING PROCESS

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

tT

hrou

gh Y

ESA

A

Yukon Placer Authorization (1993)

Identified end-of-pipe sediment standards for placer mining operations

Stream classification based on presence and absence of fishType I - salmon & trout spawning streams (no impact)Type II - salmon rearing streamsType III - fish species of social/cultural/economic significance and important to biodiversityType IV

IV(a) - other streams with fishIV(b) - other streams, no fish

Type V - unclassified

Current YPA – The Challenges

Stream classification based on presence or absence of fish

Many factors determine fish distribution - e.g. population or year class strength, changing environmental conditionsDifficult to change stream classifications when fish informationchanges

Sediment discharge standards provide certainty for miners and inspectors

Current YPA – The Challenges

Sediment loading and sediment levels in the environment (i.e. water quality objectives) more important for fish

Deferrals – water quality and physical

Uncertainty how fisheries and stream productivity and health (diversity) affected by miningUncertainty how long recovery takes after mining ceases

PROPOSED REGIME

Placer Activities

Land

Socio Economic

Water

Fish


Water Use License

Yukon WatershedAuthorizations

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

tT

hrou

gh Y

ESA

A

PROPOSED REGIME

Regulatory Framework

Adaptive ManagementFramework

Placer Activities

Land

Socio Economic

Water

Fish


Water Use License

Yukon WatershedAuthorizations

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

tT

hrou

gh Y

ESA

A

Regulatory FrameworkRisk Based Approach Watershed Based Compliance, Monitoring

& Enforcement

Adaptive Management Framework

PROPOSED REGIME

Effects on

Industry

Assess ProblemAdjust Design Evaluate Implement

Monitor

PlacerActivi-

ties

Land

Socio Economic

Water

Fish

MLUOP

WUL

YWA

YE

SAA

Effects on

WatershedHealth

What is the proposed Placer Regime?

A management & regulatory framework

Addresses the effects of placer mining activities on fish and fish habitat under the federal Fisheries Act.

Does not deal with effects of hard rock mining

Does not apply to wildlife or land use Richard Hartmier Photo

Management Objectivesoperational measures & practices that eliminate or reduce the effects of specific mining activities on fish and fish habitat.

Regulatory RequirementsFisheries Act prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized pursuant to section 35(2). Re-location, re-design and mitigation considered prior to authorization.


What is the proposed Placer Regime?

The Regime principles are basedon an understanding of:

Where placer gold is found

How placer mining recovers gold

How mining activities can effect fish and fish habitat

The biology of fish species and aquatic organisms

Ecological processes that are part of a healthy aquatic system

Key Positive Aspects of proposed Regime

Watershed health approach based on diversity and abundance of benthic invertebrates and fish.

Habitat classification based on habitat suitability instead of presence/absence of fish.

Emphasis on instream water quality objectives instead of only end-of-pipe mine effluents.


Risk assessment and management of water quality objectives and discharge standards based on sensitivity of habitat and severity of impact of placer activity.

Action level approach to enforcement and compliance of discharge standards.


Adaptive management• Requires monitoring of water

quality objectives and watershed health.• Monitor for impacts on industry• Provides way to improve regime over

time by learning from results achieved.

Traditional Knowledge (TK)• Will be used together with scientific

information in authorizations.


Benefits of proposed Regime

Tailored to unique Yukon environmentImproved aquatic healthProtection for fish & fish habitatGreater certainty for industryIncorporates Traditional KnowledgeTransparent & integrated approachClear standards & rulesAdaptive ManagementIntegrated resource management including YG, DFO & CYFN

Consultation Plans and Traditional Knowledge

Consultation Plans

Objectives

Provide information about differences between current YPA & proposed RegimeProvide opportunities for comment on Regime before implementationEnsure placer industry is informed & can comment on Regime’s effects on their operations

Consultation Plans

Who will be consulted?

First NationsMandated BoardsStakeholdersPublic and Communities

Past First Nation Involvement

CYFN a signatory to Record of Agreement Member of Implementation Steering CommitteeRepresented on Working Group which developed the Regime framework

Info sessions on Traditional Knowledge hosted by CYFN Jan 2004 & Mar 2005Yukon First Nations receive general briefing on proposed regime July 2004Nacho Nyak Dun - separate briefing on request Sept 2004Industry briefing in Dawson attended by Dawson RRC repBriefing with Yukon Salmon Committee & Yukon Fish & Wildlife Management Board May/June 2005

Consultation Plans

Three-Step Process

Phase 1 – Information – Mar-June 2006Present key concepts & information

Phase 2 – Consultation – Sept-Dec 2006Gather input on proposed Regime

Phase 3 – Final Review – Mar-May 2007Review how feedback has been incorporatedFinal opportunity for input

Traditional Knowledge (TK)Will be used together with scientific & local information in authorizations

Secretariat proposes to gather TK with assistance & direction from First Nations

Introductory meetings held in February/March with all Yukon First Nations to discuss consultation & gathering of TK

Traditional KnowledgeSecretariat proposal to Gather TK

Adapt to suit each First Nation needsFirst Nation to identify TK-holdersSchedule meetings on TK in each communityAt meetings:

Secretariat provides briefing on Regime & draft authorizationSecretariat requests TK input for authorization

Understanding Placer Mining and effects on Fish

Placer Mining

Uses no chemicals

Creates no toxic by-products

Uses water, motion & gravity

www.painetworks.com

Placer Operations

What is Placer Gold?Pieces of gold (flakes, nuggets) which eroded from hardrock and were carried downstream by streams and rivers.

Deposited in stream and river valleys when currents slow down and are no longer strong enough to suspend the gold, which is heavy, in water.

Over thousands of years streams and rivers changed course, and valleys filled up with sediments, including placer gold deposits.

The heavy placer gold migrates downward through the sediments and is concentrated at the bedrock level, often covered by 50 feet or more of sediments.

How does Placer Mining Recover Placer Gold?

Sediments and gravels covering the “pay dirt” above the bedrock are removed.Placer gold is recovered by “sluicing” the gravels, i.e. gravels are processed by washing in flowing water, with the heaviest particles (gold) settling out.The sluicing process uses water to wash away fine materials from the gold particles, often resulting in high concentrations of sediment within the waste water.


How does Placer Mining Recover Placer Gold?

Settling ponds are used to settle out the sediments before the water is discharged back into the stream. Some mines recycle the water for more sluicing.To get at pay dirt underneath streams and rivers, the stream or river may need to be diverted while mining.

What Placer Mining Activities Can Affect Fish & Fish Habitat?

Water use - for sluicingSediment discharges - from sluicingStream diversions - to get at pay dirt underneath streamsOther Instream Activities - Construction of dams, dikes, settling

ponds, etc.

Effects of Stress on FishReproduction - may be irregular or absent.

Growth - may be reduced.

Body Condition – may be reduced.

Survival - stress can result in direct or indirect mortality.

How is Reproduction Different between Salmon and Grayling?

Salmonspawn once in their lifetime in very specialized

habitat, expending all their energy and life in this effort.

produce relatively few but large eggs which they deposit in carefully prepared redds in fall when water runs very clear.

eggs incubate in gravels for 6 or 7 months and hatch in late winter or spring.

fry hatch with large yolk sacs which provide nourishment for weeks. Young salmon reside in fresh water for weeks, months or years prior to migrating out to sea. Suitable feeding and rearing habitat is critical during this time.

www.magazine.audubon.org

www.premiermountainlodge.com

magazine.audobon.org

Graylingspawn multiple times in lifetime with less

specialized spawning habitat requirements.produce relatively small eggs in the spring

which are broadcast over a variety of habitat types and areas.

eggs incubate in 2 to 3 weeks and hatch in late spring.

fry have small yolk sacs, poorer swimming ability and are dependent on water currents to carry them into warmer water areas with sufficient food in spring for them to survive and grow to a size where they can swim and actively seek out rearing habitats.

How is Reproduction Different between Salmon and Grayling?

Watershed Sensitivity and Habitat Suitability Vs Risk

National Habitat Management Risk Matrix

Physical ParametersDegree of Development Criteria

Less than 1% overall water course length developed

From 1 % to 20 % overall water course length developed

Over 20 % overall water course length developed

Moderate Suitability Development CriteriaLess than 1% moderate suitability length developed

From 1% to 20% of moderate suitability length developed

Over 20% moderate suitability length developed

Watershed Water Quality CriteriaGreater than 100 mg/litre suspended sediment

From 25 mg/litre to 100 mg/litre suspended sediment

Less than 25 mg/litre suspended sediment

Watershed Sensitivity Indicators

Watershed Sensitivity Indicators

Biological Parameters Adult Salmon Distribution Criteria

No known salmon spawning areas or adult salmon presence

Historic salmon spawning areas, not current

Likely salmon spawning areas, no verified presence

Known salmon spawning areas, limited distribution

Known salmon spawning areas, broad distribution


Watershed Sensitivity Designation

Each watershed will be classified based on overall scoring of physical and biological watershed sensitivity criteria.

Category A watersheds

MORE sensitive

Category B watersheds

LESS sensitive

Habitat Suitability Indicators

Physical Parameters

Water Course Gradient

0% to 1.5%

1.51% to 3.5%

3.51% to 5%

over 5%

Habitat Suitability IndicatorsPhysical Parameters - Water Quality (TSS) Concentrations

100 mg/litre (score 1)100 mg/litre (score 1)

25–100 mg/litre (score 2)25–100 mg/litre (score 2)

<25 mg/litre (score 3)<25 mg/litre (score 3)

>100 mg/litre (score 1)25–100 mg/litre (score 2)

25–100 mg/litre (score 2)<25 mg/litre (score 3)

>100 mg/litre (score 1)<25 mg/litre (score 3)

Main Stem Concentration

Tributary Concentration

Habitat Suitability Indicators

Biological ParametersKnown salmon spawning areas/special management zones

Proximity to juvenile production areas

0.0 to 5.0 km5.01 to 35.0 km35.0 to 70.0 kmMore than 70.0 km


New Classification

Risk Matrix for the Residual Effects of Placer Mining – Stream Channel Diversions

Local habitat considerations not

relevant5

(2) Restoration requirements

specified in licence2; suppression of productivity

accepted until completion of

mining4




mining4




mining4


specified in licence2; short-term

suppression of productivity accepted3

(6) Site-specific review and

authorization1

Low (1)


relevant5




mining4




mining4





authorization1

(7) Site-specific review and authorization1

Moderate (2)


relevant5




mining4





authorization1


authorization1

(8) Site-specific review and authorization, or no HADD authorized1e

High (3)

Water Quality Low (1)Moderate-Low (2)Moderate-Moderate (3)

Moderate-High (4)High (5)Potential Risk: Diversion Channels

Habitat Sensitivity

Potential Severity of Effects Table for the Residual Effects of Placer Mining – Stream Channel Diversions

SatisfactoryFewNoneHabitat features

Stable materialEasily eroded, fine materialPermafrostMaterial channel is constructed in

< 100 m> 100 m < 1 km.> 1 kmLength of diversion channel

Lowest point in valleyConfinedPerchedLocation of diversion channel

> 10 years [stable, well-designed, permanent (“final restoration channel”)]

2 to 10 years (stable, well-designed, some potential for fish utilization)

< 2 years (i.e., little opportunity for return to productivity)

Duration diversion channel is in place

> 1:5 year1:2 year to 1:5 year< 1:2 year Return period used for channel design (flood flows)

Low Risk (Score 1)Moderate Risk (Score 2)High Risk (Score 3)Physical Disruption: Diversion Channels

Compliance and Action Level

Compliance enforcementROUTINE INSPECTIONS are conducted by Natural Resource Officers/Mining employed by EM&R.

BEFORE APRIL 1, 2003 inspection and enforcement activities were governed by an MoU between DIAND, DFO and DoE. A protocol to replace this MoU has been formalized by EM&R and DFO.

NATURAL RESOURCE OFFICERS (mining inspectors) perform their duties within a framework of Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement.

Compliance enforcement

EDUCATION is served in many ways, including a dialogue prior to permitting.

Inspectors always explain a new licence to operators, stressing the obligations and ensuring the requirements are understood.Operators are encouraged to ask questions, and inspectors make providing information and clarification a high priority.


ENCOURAGEMENT takes many forms, and includes:

Timely remindersReadiness to acknowledge a job well-doneShowing understanding of an operator’s aims and working conditionsInvolving operators in decisions that affect themMaintaining an effective field presence


ENFORCEMENT activities include:

Inspection and monitoring to verify complianceVerbal or written warningsWarning ticketsDirections to perform remedial measuresInvestigations of serious violationsProsecution

Action Level Approach

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


Definitions

Design Target: the best settling facility that can be established at a placer mining operation, given the prevailing site characteristics

Action Level: the end-of-pipe sediment concentrations that must not be exceeded --on average-- for the life of the mining operation

Compliance Level: a maximum end-of-pipe concentration that must never be exceeded

Application of Action Level

SETTLING POND PERFORMANCE

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Days

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

l/L)

Water Quality Objectives and Sediment Discharge StandardsWatersheds of Higher Sensitivity

Standard to meet downstream Water Quality16NoneNo Fish8FieldWater Quality

Design Target: 0.2 ml/L12

Action Level: 1.0 ml/LCompliance Level: 1.5 ml/L

< 200 mg/LRearing Other Low7Tier 33Low


Action Level:13 0.8 ml/L15

Compliance Level:14 1.2 ml/L< 80 mg/L

Rearing CH Low

Rearing Other High6

Tier 2Moderate-L

< 200 mg/L< 50 mg/LRearing CH5

ModerateTier 2Moderate-M

< 200 mg/L11< 25 mg/LRearing CH5

HighTier 22Moderate-H

0 mg/L10< 25 mg/LSalmonidspawning4Tier 11High

Sediment Discharge StandardWQO9DescriptionSensitivity Indicators

Habitat Sensitivity

Water Quality Objectives and Sediment Discharge StandardsWatersheds of Lower Sensitivity

Standard to meet downstream Water Quality16NoneNo Fish8FieldWater Quality


Action Level: 1.0 ml/LCompliance Level: 2.5 ml/L18

< 300 mg/LRearing Other Low7Tier 33Low


Action Level: 1.0 ml/LCompliance Level: 2.0 ml/L17

< 200 mg/L

Rearing CH Low

Rearing Other High6

Tier 2Moderate-L


Action Level:13 0.4 ml/L15

Compliance Level:14 0.8 ml/L< 100 mg/LRearing CH5

ModerateTier 2Moderate-M

< 200 mg/L11< 25 mg/LRearing CH5

HighTier 22Moderate-H

0 mg/L10< 25 mg/LSalmonidspawning4Tier 11High

Sediment Discharge StandardWQO9DescriptionSensitivity Indicators

Habitat Sensitivity

Water Quality;What do we know ?

Water Quality Monitoring Participants

CS&I Staff

All Inspectors, 3 Research Staff, 2 Lab Assistants

YG Water Resources

DFO

SAMPLING 2004

Geology, 18, 2%

DFO, 14, 2% Research, 133, 16%

Inspections, 505, 59%

Blitz, 176, 21%

TOTAL SAMPLES

846

SAMPLING 2005

DFO, 49, 3%

Inspections, 442, 30%

Blitz, 161, 11%

Geology, 38, 3%

Research, 790, 53%

TOTAL SAMPLES

1513

y = 4E-16x5 - 3E-12x4 + 7E-09x3 - 8E-06x2 + 0.0051x - 0.6727R2 = 0.9922

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Setle

able

Sol

ids

(ml/L

)

Suspended Solids VS Settleable Solids for Green Gulch, #76 (2004, with Trendline)

Projects On The GoMAKING SENSE OF LAST YEARS DATA

ANALYZING, COMPILING, MAPPING, OVER 1500 SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 2005

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF OVER 175 SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED LAST YEARUSING THE 300+ FLOW MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED TO CALCULATE STREAM LOADINGDIGITIZING ALL OF THE LAB ANALYSIS FROM 1982 ON INTO A WQ DATA BASETSS vs SETTLEABLE CORRELATIONS OF OVER 450 SILT CLAY SAMPLES COLLECTED SINCE 2003

Watersheds2006

INDIAN RIVERKLONDIKE RIVERMcQUESTEN RIVER60 MILE RIVER

THESE ARE THE PRIMARY TARGET WATERSHEDS FOR 2006

2007

MAYO RIVERYUKON RIVER NORTHYUKON RIVER SOUTHWHITE RIVER

THESE ARE THE SECONDARY TARGET WATERSHEDS FOR 2006, PRIMARY FOR 2007

Water Quality

Measurements of WQ at Specific Sites in Each of the First 8 WatershedsFlow Measurements*Water & Air Temperature, RainfallStream WalksSediment

71

2006

72

2006

73

2006

74

2006

Aquatic Health;What do we know ?

Fish/Benthic Field Studies 2003 and 2004

Currently mined streams

Streams not currently mined but with recent mining – i.e. 3 to 5 years

Streams not mined for more than 10 years

Fish/Benthic Studies 2003 and 2004

Possible Category A Watersheds

Klondike RiverMcQuesten River

Possible Category B Watersheds

Indian RiverSixty Mile River

Sampling Methods

What are Benthic Invertebrates?

Mostly aquatic larvae stages of terrestrial insects - mayflies, stoneflies, dragonflies, blackflies, etc.Adult stages are terrestrial insects which lay eggs in aquatic environments and thus are capable of rapid re-colonization after desiccation (drying up), flood event or removal of a stress or disturbance.Diversity, abundance and composition of benthic invertebrates relatively constant between areas and seasons, thus good indicator species.Both aquatic larvae and terrestrial adult forms are important fish food organisms, e.g. fly fishers use wet and dry flies to catch fish.

Why are Benthic Invertebrates Important to the Regime?

They are the key food organism for juvenile salmon, and both adult and juvenile freshwater fish.

They are the main indicator organisms for water quality and aquatic environment health and productivity in terms of:

diversity (health - number of species groups represented)abundance (productivity - amount of each group)quality (health and productivity - more environmentally sensitive species groups and more important fish food species groups)

ltreadwell.ifas.ufl.edu

www.usask.ca/biology

www.encarta.msn.com

ltreadwell.ifas.ufl.edu

www.wri.sdstate.edu

www.vvm.com

www.images.enature.com

ALLGOLD CREEK(Sampling Dates: July 31st and September 5th, 2003; July 27th, 2004)

•Stream Order = Class 2•Drainage Area = 80 km2

•Site Location = 1.3 km upstream of Klondike HWY•Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = 1.4 %•Channel Width = 13 m•Wetted Width = 4.5 m

Shrub / initial recolonization.16

Cobble (dom)Gravel

(subdom)

Boulder (dom)<5high

AG (36)SS (29)CH (6)

2003

“““““lowCH (24)SS (15)AG (3)

2004

Riparian Vegetationand Stage

Residual Pool Depth (m)Bed MaterialCover

TypeTotal Cover

(%)

Habitat CharacteristicsFishingEffort

Species CapturedYear

BONANZA CREEK(Sampling Date: September 11th, 2003; July 27th, 2004)


•Site Location = kilometre 2 Bonanza Creek Road•Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = .5 %•Channel Width = 13.5•Wetted Width = 10.5

Young Mixed Forest.60

fines (dom)gravel

(subdom)

Deep Pool (dom)Overhanging Vegetation

(subdom)> 20low

SS (21)AG (1)CH (1)

2003

“““““medium

CH (52)SS (5)

LNS (3)BB (1)

2004



TypeTotal Cover

(%)

Habitat Characteristics

FishingEffort


CLEAR CREEK(Sampling Date: July 31st, 2003)


•Site Location = upstream Klondike HWY•Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = .2 %•Channel Width = 17 m•WettedWidth=22m

Shrub / Young Mixed Forest.54

Cobble (dom)Gravel and fines

(subdom)

Overhanging Vegetation (dom)

Deep Pool (subdom)10 to 20medium

AG (23)SS (9)CH (1)

2003



TypeTotal Cover

(%)



HUNKER CREEK(Sampling Dates: September1st and 3rd,2003; July 27th, 2004)


•Site Location = upstream and downstream of the Klondike HWY•Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = 1.25 %•Channel Width = 8.3•Wetted Width = 7.4

Shrub /Young Conifer Forest .75

fines (dom)Gravel

(subdom)

DP (dom)OV

(subdom)5 to 20high

SS (96)AG (26)LNS (6)CH (6)RW (1)BB (1)

2003

“““““mediumSS (59)CH (3)AG (1)

2004



TypeTotal Cover

(%)



SESTAK CREEK(Sampling Date: July 30th, 2003)


•Site Location = .4 kilometres upstream of Yukon River•Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = 1.4 %•Channel Width = 24 m•Wetted Width = 5 m

Shrub / pole sapling stage.63

Cobble (dom)Gravel and Boulder

(subdom)

OV (dom)B

(subdom)10 to 20medium

AG (44)SS (11)LNS (6)CH (2)

2003



TypeTotal Cover

(%)



INDIAN RIVER (Mainstem)(Sampling Date: August 25th, 2004)

•Stream Order = Class 4•Drainage Area = •2,270 km2•Site Location = 10 km upstream of Yukon River confluenc•Length Surveyed = 200 m•Site Gradient = 0.23 %•Channel Width = 34.2•Wetted Width = 22.2

Mature Mixed Forest

Moderately Turbid

Large Gravel (dom)Small Cobble, Fines

(subdom)

Boulder (dom)Undercut Bank

(subdom)

Moderate5 to 20Low

SS (26)LNS (11)AG (4)LC (3)CH (2)

2004


TurbidityBed MaterialCoverType

Total Cover (%)



NINE MILE CREEK(Sampling Date: August 25th, 2004)


•Site Location = confluence with Indian River •Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = 1.1 %•Channel Width = 2.3•Wetted Width = 1.2

Mature Mixed Forest

Slightly Turbid

Small Gravel (dom)

Boulder (subdom)

Boulders, Undercut Bank (dom)

Deep Pool, Overhanging Vegetation (subdom)

Abundant > 20Low

SS (110)AG (24)CH (9)

2004


TurbidityBed MaterialCover TypeTotal Cover (%)



OPHIR CREEK(Sampling Date: August 25th, 2004)


•Site Location = confluence with Indian River •Length Surveyed = 100 m•Site Gradient = 3.75 %•Channel Width = 2.9 m•Wetted Width = 2.2 m

Mature ForestClear water

Boulder (dom)Small Gravel

(subdom)

Boulder and Undercut Bank (dom), Overhanging Vegetation (subdom)

Abundant > 20low

SS (70)CH (3)AG (1)BB (1)NP (1)LNS (1)

2004


TurbidityBed MaterialCover TypeTotal Cover (%)



INDIAN RIVER (at Quartz Creek)(Sampling Date: August 25th, 2004)

•Stream Order = Class 4•Drainage Area = 2,270 km2

•Site Location = confluence with Quartz Creek•Length Surveyed = 200 m•Site Gradient = .5 %•Channel Width = 20.7m•Wetted Width =13.6 m

Shrub / initial recolonizationTurbid

Fines (dom)Large Gravel

(subdom)

Small Woody Debris (dom)

Moderate5 to 20low

SS (16)AG (12)NP (6)

LNS (2)

2004


TurbidityBed MaterialCover TypeTotal

Cover (%)



0

5

10

15

20

25

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72

Number of Taxa

Perc

enta

ge o

f Site

s

Baseline Sites (n=134)Impacted Sites (n=86)

Impacted Mean21.9 (+/- 2.8)

Baseline Mean33.0 (+/- 2.5)

Data Source: Environment Canada Database

Benthic Invertebrate Richness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

Number

Per

cent

age

of S

ites

Baseline Sites (n=104)

Impacted Sites (n=73)

Data Source: Environment Canada Database

Benthic Invertebrate Density (#/meter2)

Summary of Field StudiesAll streams had values for both salmon and freshwater fish.

Mined systems had high diversity (number of species groups) of fish and invertebrates, but reduced abundance

Extensive long term mining in large river valleys created habitats favorable to warmwater fish.

Recovery of rearing productivity for juvenile fish relatively rapid after mining.

Physical recovery of habitat for adult fish takes longer.

www.yukonplacersecretariat.ca

206B Lowe Street l P.O. Box 2703 (PS-206) Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2C6 l Phone: 867-393-7437 l Fax: 867-667-3632

Date post:	20-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buiminh
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

A New Regulatory Regime for the Management of Yukon …€¦ · A New Regulatory Regime for the...

Documents