geologic and hydrogeologic interpretations of wines ...pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/gran/38343.pdf ·...

GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC INTERPRETATIONS OF WINES JUNCTION, DESTRUCTION BAY, BURWASH LANDING AND CHAMPAGNE, YUKON TERRITORIES

Terrain Analysis and Mapping Services Ltd. Box 158, Carp, Ontario

This report was prepared under contract for the Canada-Yukon General Subsidiary Agreement on Renewable Resource Information and Tourist Industry Development. The views, conclusions and recommendations expressed herein are those of the consultant and not necessarily of the parties to the Subsidiary Agreement.

March 28, 1980

000

rl

nl

m

..

.

0

vr

I I 1 i i i

5.4 Unique Features 5 . 5 Hydrogeology

5 . 5 . 1 Well Survey 5 . 5 . 2 Water Quality 5.5.3 Groundwater Flow Regim 5.5.4 Water Supply Potential

6.0 Burwash Landing 6.1 Setting 6.2 Terrain Types and Their Characteristics 6 3 Suitability Maps

6.3.1 Suitability f o r Road Construction 6.3.2 Suitability f o r Building Construction

and Utility Installation 6.3.3 Suitability and Optimum Locations for

Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills 6 . 3 . 4 Suitability f o r S e p t i c Systems 6.3.5 Suitability and Availability of

Construction Materials 6.4 Unique Features 6.5 Hydrogeology

6.5.1 Well Survey 6.5.2 Water Quality 6.5.3 Groundwater Flow Regime 6.5.4 Water Supply ,Potential

7.0 Champagne 7.1 Geologic Setting 7.2 Terrain Types and Their Characteristics 7.3 Suitability Maps

7.3.1 Suitability f o r Road Construction 7.3.2 Suitability for Building Construction 7 . 3 . 3 Suitability and Optimum Locations

7.3.4 Suitability for Septic Systems 7.3.5 Suitability and Availability of

Construction Materials

f o r Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills

7 . 4 Unique Features 7.5 Hydrogeology

7.5.1 We11 Survey 7 . 5 . 2 Water Quality 7.5.3 Groundwater Flow Regime 7 5.4 Water Supply Potential

8 0 Bibliography 9 . 0 Glossary of Geotechnical Terms Appendix A: Suitability Evaluations of Terrain Typing Appendix B: Grain Size Analysis

69 69 69 72 74 78 80 80 83 83 83 87

87

91 93

95 95 95 97 99 103 104 104 108 108 108 110 112

114 116

118 119 119 119 119 121 123 126

Map 4.1 4.3.1

4 . 3 . 2

4 . 3 . 3

4 . 3 . 4

4.3.5

4 . 3 . 6

5.1

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.4

5.3.5

5.5.1

6.1

6.3.1

6.3.2

6 . 3 . 3

6 . 3 . 4

List of Maps

Terrain Types Near Haines Junction, Y .T. Suitability f o r Highways and Roads, Haines Junction Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation, Haines Junction Suitability for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills, Haines Junction Suitability f o r Septic F i e l d s , Haines Junction Suitability for Construction Materials, Haines Junction Sample and Observation Locations, Haines Junction

Terrain Types and Surficial Materials, Destruction Bay suitability f o r Highways and Roads, Destruction

Suitability i o r Building Construction and U t i l i t y Installation, Destruction Bay Suitability for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills, Destruction Bay Suitability for S e p t i c Fields, Destruction

Suitability f o r Construction Materials, Destruction Bay Suitability for Well and Observation Locations, Destruction Bay

Terrain Types and Surficial Materials, Burwash Landing Suitability for Highways and Roads, Burwash Landing Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation, Bumash Landing Suitability f o r Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills, Burwash Landing Suitability for Septic Fie lds , Burwash Landing

Bay

Bay

i 8 I 1

I '

6.3.5

6.5.1

7.1

7.3.1

7 . 3 . 2

7 . 3 . 3

7 . 3 . 4 7.3.5

7 . 5 . 5

Suitability for Construction Materials, Burwash Landing Suitability for Well and Observation Location, Burwash Landing

Terrain Types and Surficial Materials, Champagne Suitabi l i t ies f o r Highways and Roads, Champagne Suitabi l i ty for Building Construction and Utility Installation, Champagne Suitability for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills, Champagne Suitability f o r Sept ic Fields, Champagne Suitability f o r Construction Materials, Champagne Suitability for Well and Observation Locations, Champagne

Table 4 . 1

Table 4 . 3 . 1

Table 4 . 3 . 2

Table 4 . 3 . 3

Table 4 . 3 . 4

Table 4 . 3 . 5

Table 4.5.1

Table 4 5 . 2

Table 4.5.3a

Table 4 . 5 . 3 b

Table 4 . 5 . 3 ~

Table 4.5.4

Table 5.1

Table 5.3.1

Table 5 3 . 2

List of Tables Page

Descriptive Legend of Terrain Types at Haines Junction

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Highways and Roads (Haines Junction)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability fo r Building Construction and Utility Installation (Haines Junction)

Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfill, (Haines Junction)

Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability for Septic Systems (Haines Junction)

Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability f o r Construction Materials (Haines Junction)

Haines Junction Well Survey

Water Chemistry Data (Champagne-Haines Junction)

Stratigraphic Log of Parks Canada Well, Haines Junction

Stratigraphy, Community Well No. 1, Eaines Junction

Stratigraphy of Community Well No. 2 , Haines Junction

Haines Junction Grain Size and Hydraulic Conductivity measurements

Descriptive Legend of Surficial Materials a t Destruction Bay

Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability f o r Highways and Roads, (Destruction Bay)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation (Destruction Bay)

15

21

23

26

28

30

35

3s

42

43

44

47

52

59

60

Table 5 . 3 . 3

Table 5.3.4

Table 5.3.5

Table 5.5.1

Table 5.5.2a

Table 5.5.4

Table 6.1

Table 6.3.1

Table 6 . 3 . 2

Table 6.3.3

Table 6 . 3 . 4

Table 6.3.5

Table 6.5.1

Table 6 5 . 2

Table 6.5.3

Table 7.1

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfill, (Destruction Bay)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Septic Systems (Destruction Bay 1 Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Construction Materials (Destruction Bay)

Hydrogeologic Data, Destruction Bay

Water Chemistry Data (Destruction Bay)

Stra t igraphy of Destruction Bay (Community

Descriptive Legend of Surficial Materials

Well)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability for Highways and Roads (Burwash Landing)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability for Building Construction and Utility Installation (Bumash Landing)

Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability f o r Sewage Lagoons and. Sanitary Landfill, (Burwash Landing)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitabi l i ty for Septic Systems (Burwash Landing)

Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing Suitability f o r Construction Materials (Burwash Landing)

Hydrogeological Data at Burwash Landing

Water Chemistry of Burwash Landing Wells

Hydraulic Conductivity of Geologic Materials at Burwash Landing

Descriptive Legend of Surficial Materials at Champagne

63

6 5

67

70

7 3

75

84

86

88

8 9

92

94

96

98

100

105

Table 7.3.1 Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing 109 Suitabi l i t for Highways and Roads (Champagne v Suitabi l i ty for Building Constntction and Ut i l i ty Installation (Champagne)

Table 7 . 3 . 2 Terrain Property Guidelines f o r Assessing 111

Table 7 . 3 . 3 Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing 113 Suitabi l i ty f o r Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfill (Champagne)

Table 7 . 3 . 4 Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing 115 Suitabi l i t f o r Septic Systems (Champagne v

Table 7.3.5 Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing 117 Suitabilit for Construction Materials (Champagne 7

Table 7 . 5 . 2 Water Chemistry at Champagne 120

F i g . 4.5.1 Fig. 4.5.3 Fig . 4 . 5 . 4 Fig. 5.5.la Fig. 5.5.lb Fig. 5.5.3 F i g . 6.1 Fig . 6.5.3 Fig. 7.1 F i g . 7.5.3

List of Figures

Well Locations, Kaines Junction Geological Cross-section, Haines Junction Groundwater Flow, Haines Junction Geological Cross-section, Destruction Bay Geological Cross-section, Destruction Bay Groundwater Flow, Destruction Bay Geological Cross-section, Burwash Landing Groundwater Flow, Burwash Landing Geological Cross-section, Champagne Groundwater Flow, Champagne

Page

34 40 45 5 5 56 77 82 101 107 122

1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Suitability maps at a scale of 1:20,000 f o r terrain in the immediate vicinities of Haines Junction, Destruction Bay, Burwash Landing and Champagne f o r road construction, building construction and installation of underground utilities, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, septic systems, and construction materials including granular materials are presented herein. In addition, unique Quaternary geologic features, potential for lake-side recreational development, and the ground water potential including quality, quantity, recharge and direction of ground water flow are briefly evaluated.

Five classifications are established to evaluate the suitability of terrain f o r a variety of purposes. These classifications are a comment upon the relative amount of terrain modifica- tion required to adapt terrain to a specific use or facility, upon the relative amount of effort required to maintain a use or facility, upon the amount of effort required to prevent physical disturbance and deterioration of the immediate environs from a specific use or facility, and upon the amount of preliminary investigations that might be required before a facility or use should be considered or campleted. Terrain factors were established that allow any undisturbed terrain type's suitability to be classified in a northern environment frequently characterized by permafrost and periglacial processes. These factors included slope; drainage; flood hazard; permafrost and ice contents; hazards due to mass wastage, fault activity, glacier advance, etc.; bedrock depth; material composition and stoniness.

The suitability maps are to be used only as a guide to planning and development in that they outline the major problems and degrees of problems f o r specific utilization within an area. Site assessment may determine t ha t a site may be more or less suitable f o r a specific purpose than is defined on the suitability maps f o r a complete area because of variability of the properties

2

of terrain types, and limitations of accuracy of the terrain typing, terrain type characterization and suitability evaluation. Accuracy of the suitability maps is limited by the accuracy of the base data or terrain typing and the accuracy of characterizing terrain factors within terrain types.

The suitability f o r the purposes listed above and the ground water potential is controlled by the terrain types and surficial materials present at each community. Haines Junction lies in an area of discontinuous permafrost,and compact dense till overlain by a blanket of lacustrine silt and clay of variable thickness; areas of gravelly and sandy outwash are present to the north and alluvium is present along the Dezadeash River to the south,

Destruction Bay and Burwash Landing are in areas where streams originating in the Kluane Ranges have deposited alluvium in the form of alluvial-fans. The alluvium, which is primarily gravel at Burwash Landing and which is a mixture of clayey silt, sand, and gravel at Destruction Bay, overlies and abuts against till and outwash. Permafrost is present at both communities with taliks under water bodies and within certain alluvial landforms.

Champagne lies in a large glacial lake basin filled with varved clays and silts and bedded silty sands. This sequence is interupted by a ridge of gravel and sand and the Dezadeash River alluvium and pond deposits at Champagne. Sand dunes are also a common phenomena at Champagne.

3

OBJECTIVES 2 .o

water flow within the communities.

The suitability maps are to be based on evaluations and interpretations of investigations of the surficial geology and landforms; discussions of ground water potential are to be based on an assessment of available and collected data.

The suitability maps and the hydrogeologic assessment are to be such that they can be used for urban and rural planning and development. This includes planning for provision of infra- structures for services and recreational facilities,

3.0 METtlODOLOGY

3.1 Field Investigations

During the summer of 1979, field investigations were undertaken in the vicinities of the settlements to upgrade the knowledge of the surficial geology in their v ic in i ty . The various properties of the terrain types present, i.e. slope, topography, bedrock depths , material grain-size distribution, compaction and permeability, permafrost and ground ice distribution, active layer thicknesses, water tables and drainage, peat thicknesses, presence of hazards, processes and features such as f looding, recent fault

4

3 . 2 Office Studies

Office studies involved t h e preparation of maps of the surficial geology of communities, and the preparation of suitability maps fo r road construction, building construction, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, and sept ic systems. This involved establishing five classif icat ions f o r t e r ra in su i tab i l i ty , def in- ing the different s tates of seven cr i t ica l t e r ra in fac tors tha t affect the su i t ab i l i t y of t e r ra in for a specific purpose, and evaluating the suitabi l i ty of terrain types f o r a purpose based on the defined guidelines.

All available data concerning the hydrology and granular materials f o r each community were collected and collated from government files, and together with data collected during this investigation were analyzed. Maps and a section of this report were then prepared to define and discuss the hydrology and ground water potent ia l , and quantity and quality of granular materials for each community, Unique Quaternary features were identified and located a t each community.

5

3 . 3 Sui tab i l i ty Maps

3.3.1 Classification

Five claasifications have been established t o evaluate the su i t ab i l i t y of terrain types o r areas for a variety of purposes. The classiEications are GOOD, FAIRLY GOOD, FAIR (MARGINAL), POOR and UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR). These c lass i f ica- tions are a comment upon the relative amount of terrain modifica- tion required t o adapt terrain t o a specific use or f a c i l i t y , upon the re la t ive amount of effort required t o maintain a use or f a c i l i t y , upon the amount of effort required t o prevent physical disturbance and deterioration of the immediate environs from a specific use o r f a c i l i t y , and upon the amount of preliminary investigations that might be required before a facility o r use should be considered of: completed. In essence, the costs required t o successfully adapt an area t o a specific purpose are re la t ive ly low for an area classif ied as GOOD, nrd progressively increases to a maximum cost for an area classified as UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR).

It should be noted that terrain factors such as material composition and character is t ics , slopes, drainage, permafrost and ground ice dis t r ibut ion have some degree of va r i ab i l i t y in any t e r ra in type. A su i tab i l i ty c lass i f ica t ion for a te r ra in type has t o take into consideration and integrate the variabil i ty of the terrain factors . For example, an area classif ied as FAIR (MARGINAL) may have a terrain factor that makes the t e r ra in type

universally marginal for a specific purpcwe, o r i t may be that some of the terrain type could be classif ied as re la t ive ly GOOD for that purpose, but significant parts could only be classif ied as FAIR (MARGINAL) o r POOR for that purpose.

6

road construction and maintenance on a gently-sloping well- drained unfrozen gravel outwash surface would require minimal c o s t s and efforts relative to road construction on other terrain tvpes.

A classification of FAIRLY GOOD indicates a ninor problem or limitation chat will slightly increase the e f f o r t and cost in adapting an area or terrain type to a specific use or facility. For example road construction and maintenance on a zently-sloping well-drained unfrozen bouldery gravel would require slightly more effort and c o s t , however minor, than on a gravel without boulders because of the necessity of removing the boulders.

A classification of FAIR (MARGINAL) indicates limitations are present within an area or terrain type that will require significant effort and cost in adapting the area or terrain type to a specific use CY facility. For example, some preliminary investigations and special design, and extra efforts and c o s t s Will be required for road construction in an area Of till underlain by permafrost with possible scattered areas having up to 0.5 m of high ice content.

A classification of POOR indicates limitations are present within an area or terrain type that w i l l require much effort and cost in adapting the area or terrain type t o the specific use or facility. For example, road construction in an area of f l a t till overlain by a blanket of peat will probably involve the expense of removing the peat from below the roadbed or some other mitigative measures.

A classification of UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR) indicates very severe lhitations are present within an area or terrain type that are insurmountable o r will require extraordinary effort and expense to adapt the area or terrain type to a specific use

7

or f a c i l i t y . For example, road construction i n an area where a thin veneer of peat overlies more than 5 m of clay having very high ice contents would require special design and expensive construction techniques t o prevent deterioration of the pemafrost from beneath the road bed and associated ditches. Continuous monitoring and maintenance would be required t o prevent deteriora- t ion of the road and i t s surrounding environment.

In general, areas having a su i tab i l i ty c lass i f ica- t ion of POOR or UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR) for a specific purpose should be avoided for tha t purpose where possible. Only where absolutely necessary, should the expensive required mitigative measures t o allow adaption of the area probably be considered. However, neither classif icat ion excludes use of the terrain. Even the classi f icat ion of UNSUITABlE or VERY POOR is only meant to imply that a particular purpose i s impractical i n a certain area o r extraordinary effort and cost i s required if the area is t o be v.;ed for such a purpose.

3.3.2 Suitability Limitations - Terrain Factors

undisturbed terrain type's suitability t o be c lass i f ied i n a northern environment frequently characterized by permafrost and periglacial processes. These factors included slope; drainage; f lood hazard; permafrost and ice contents; hazards due t o mass wastage, fau l t ac t iv i ty , g lac ie r advance, e t c . ; bedrock depth; material composition and stonfness.

Guidelines were established t o give the particular state of any individual terrain factor that would define cer tain degree of su i tab i l i ty for a specific purpose. For example, i n Table 4 . 3 . 3 slopes of less than 1 . 5 degrees are required for some areas within a te r ra in type for the slopes t o be considered as

8

GOOD f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, and slopes of greater than 15 degrees throughout a terrain type indicate slopes that are UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR) for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills. Intermediate distributions of slopes define intermediate suitabilities.

For evaluating the state of elope that dictates degree of suitability, degrees of slope were defined. However, the frequency and pattern of these slopes were also considered in terrain type classifications. For example, a flat area with a small discontinuous scarp within it would s t i l l be classified as GOOD on the basis of slope if flatness was required for a cer ta in purpose.

Drainage was evaluated partly on the position of the water table throughout the year in unfrozen terrain, but mainly on the state of drainage of the ground surface and near-surface, (i.e. an evaluation of the amount of terrain where free water was

present on the ground surface or in the near-surface; and/or of the amount of time during the year that free water was present on the ground surface or in the near-surface). This is particularly important in areas of pemafrost as the water table, In the usual sense of the term, often lies below the base of the permafrost and is unrelated to the ground surface drainage.

Flood hazard was evaluated on the basis of estimated frequency of flooding of a terrain type. Some consideration was given to the severity of a flood within an area, e.g. water depths, scour, etc, in the final evaluation.

Permafrost was evaluated on its areal distribution within a terrain type. However some consideration was given to its depth and the thickness of the active layer that characterized a terrain type. Ice contents within the upper 2 to 4 III were considered as most critical in defining degree of suitability; however some consideration was given to ground ice distribution at greater depths.

Y

In evaluating hazards, the following things were considered:

the presence, occurrence or l i k e l y occurrence of such

Of geologic phenomena such as surface ruptures and earthquakes resulting from faulting, glacier advances and over- riding, liquefaction of sediments caused by seismic activity, wind deflation and movement of s i l ty and sandy sediment; periglacial phenomena such as f r o s t creep, solifluction and nivation.

Flooding and phenomena d i r e c t l y related to permafrost and ground ice such as thermokarst and thaw-induced slope failures were not considered as they were evaluated in the flooding and permafrost ground ice factors.

depth to bedrock or the ruggedness of i t s surface.

Material composition and stoniness was evaluated as a terrain factor on the b a s i s that grain size distribution, compaction, organic content, and boulder and cobble content: defined such parameters as permeability, workability, bearing capacity and s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to frost penetration and heave; a l l characteristics considered important in the utilization of a terrain type f o r most purposes considered in this report.

3.3.3 Terrain Type Suitabilities

In constructing the suitability maps, the suita- b i l i t v of terrain types on the map of the surficial geology of

10

In defining the terrain type suitability, a l l terrain factors are considered. The suitability of the t e r ra in type is then defined by the terrain factor or factors having the relatively lowest degree of suitability. For example, if a l l terrain factors within a terrain type were GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD, except f o r drainage and flood hazard, which were POOR, the terrain type would have a suitability of POOR with drainage and f lood hazard being the limiting factors.

3 . 3 . 4 Suitability Maps - Usage and Accuracy The suitability maps, which show the suitability

classification as defined in Section 3.3.1 and the limiting factors as defined in Section 3.3.2, have been derived by trans- posing the suitability and limiting factors of terrain types to areas mapped as those terrain types.

The suitability maps are to be used only as a guide to planning and development in that they outline the major problems and degrees of problems for specific utilization within an area. Site assessment may determine that a site may be more or less suitable f o r a specific purpose than is defined on t h e suitability maps for a complete area because of variability of the properties of terrain types, and limitations of accuracy of the terrain typing, terrain type characterization and suitability evaluation. However, the limiting factors do define problems that might be avoided by careful site selection or that could be relieved by mitigative measures that would allow development within reasonable effort and cost (the latter being defined by the necessity and return provided by the u t i l i t y or use). For example, a main highway across an area classified as P - p f , mt (poor suitability due to permafrost and material composition) or U - p f , mt (unsuitable due to permafrost and material cornposition) would probably be undertaken after investigations determined where the moat favourable

11

geotechnical conditions were present in spite of costs, whereas a road t o a cottage in a similar area would probably be considered impractical and too costly. The suitability maps do not negate the requirement f o r individual site investigations pr ior to utilization for many purposes. For example, investigations of materials, drainage, ete. would still be required f o r the installation of a sewage lagoon, even in an area classified as GOOD f o r that purpose.

The accuracy of the suitability maps is limited by the accuracy of the terrain typing, the accuracy of the chacter- ization of the terrain types and the degree to which the characterization appl i e s to unique areas and sites within terrain types. The terrain typing was completed by air ground checking combined with air photo analysis and errors are inherent, However, even if the terrain typing is in error, the fact that the air photo patterns were similar enough to cause incorrect terrain typing indicates that some similarity in properties may be present and the suitability classificLtion may be partly appl icable .

The evaluations of suitability are subjective. Some errors in the degree of limitation imposed by a terrain factor on the suitability of a terrain type for a specific purpose is probable; but it is also probable that the error will only be relative. For example, imperfect drainage may define an area as being POOR f o r road building on maps in this report, whereas authorities in road construction may consider terrain marked by imperfect drainage as being FAIR (MARGINAL) or UNSUITABLE (VERY POOR) for road construction, but not probably GOOD or VERY GOOD. I t is also probable that similar suitability classifications with different terrain limiting factors do not have equal environmental or economic implications. For example, terrain classified as FAIR because of permafrost and ground ice may be as difficult for road construction as terrain classified as FAIR because of shallow

12

bedrock. The maps can still be used with the real izat ion that the limiting factors are real , but the su i tab i l i ty i s in error to a degree tha t can be redefined. However, i t i s beyond the scope of.this report to make a c o s t analysis of all l imiting factors for all specific uses.

13

4.0 MINES JUNCTION

4.1 Geologic Setting

Haines Junction is located at the juncture of two large valleys; the Shakwak Trench, which runs parallel to the Alaska Highway northwest of Haines Junction and parallel to the Haines Road southeast of Haines Junction; and the Takhini Valley, which mns east toward Whitehorse. The geology and physiography of the sharp-crested Kluane Ranges southwest of the Shakwak Trench differ significantly from the dissected r o l l i n g upland surface of the Ruby and Dezadeash Ranges north and east of the Shakwak Trench. The valley bottom at Haines Junction is gently rolling with elevations between 590 m and 700 m. The valley bottom rises rapidly to over 750 rn to the northwest and south, The Takhini Valley east of Haines Junction is gent ly rolling to flat and the axis is well below 700 rn, even though the Dezadeash River, which drains this sectioq,,flows from the east and drains southwest through a gap in the Kluane Ranges.

At Haines Junction thick unconsolidated deposits are the result of deposition during several Pleistocene glac ia l and interglacial periods, and include till, outwash, glaciolacustrine silt and clay, and alluvial silt, sand and gravel. Most of the surface materials shown on Map 4.1 were deposited during the Kluane (Macauley) glaciation. During this glaciation large valley glaciers flowing northeast along the Shakwak Trench coal- esced with a glacier flowing through the gap in the Kluane Ranges occupied by the Dezadeash River; this glacier then flowed northwest along the Shakwak Trench. East of Haines Junction th is large glacier encountered another flowing west along the Takhini River; it i s difficult to determine in which direction the net flow was,

but some glacier flow was diverted north i n t o the headwaters of Marshall Creek. AS deglaciation proceeded from the northwest to southeast, drainage from the Kluane Ranges directly west of Haines

14

Junction was diverted along the northwest flank of the waning glacier and resulted in outwash being deposited north of Bear Creek and near Pine Lake, After further deglaciation a large lake, Glacial Lake Champagne, which formed because of the continued blockage of the Dezadeash River by glaciers t o the south and blockage of other present-day drainage patterns t o the east

covered much of the Haines Junction area; i t s maximum elevation was between 748 m (2450 f t ) and 762 m (2500 f t ) as evidenced by beaches within t h i s range of elevations. Following deglacia- t i o n of areas t o the south, the Dezadeash River established i t s present drainage course and the present drainage system was established.

During Neoglacial time, the Alsek River into which the Dezadeash River flows has been periodical ly darned by a surg- ing glacier t o the south. Early advances between 3000 and 1000 years ago caused a t least two, i f not more lakes, to form i n the area; the largest lake reached elevations ,of around 667 m (2200 Et). Between 350 and 500 years, a couple of lakes were formed whose maximum elevations were near 640 m (2100 f t ) . Around 250 years ago .a lake was formed wi th a maximum elevation of 623 m (2040 f t ) and between 75 and 150 years ago a lake with a maximum elevation of 595 rn (1955 f t ) . The maximum elevations of these lakes are marked by beaches, wave-cut benches, and in the case of younger ones, strandlines composed of driftwood. In intervals during which these lakes were not present, the Dezadeash River continued t o flow near i t s present level.

Periodically, since the Macauley glaciation parts of the Haines Junction area have been bare of vegetation because of deglaciation and submergence. During these intervals, the strong south winds blowing out of the Dezadeash River gap i n the Kluane Panges has deposited loess north of Bear Creek. Wind scour has also occurred on scarps having a southern aspect and has resulted i n cliff-top dunes being formed. Marl in the Pine Lake basin

Table 4.1 Descriptive Legend of Terrain Types at Haines Junction

Terrain Type Geomorphology, Slopes Nature of Materials Permafrost, Ground Ice, Stability and Miscellaneous Potential Drafnage and Thickness Active Layer Engineering Characteristics Hazard

Rs

Db RE

tMp; t h

XLV ; XLV -mi

Glacially scoured bedrock; slopes vary from less than 5 degrees (Rp) to between 5 and 20 degrees with isolated steep scarps (Rn) ; well drahed.

Stee bedrock slopes and ledrock clfffB; slopes t o greater than 60 degrees; vel drained.

1

Drift-veneered glacially scoured bedrock; slopes generally between 5 and 20 degrees; well drained.

Drift-blanketed glacially rcoured bedrock; slopes generally lesa than 8 degrees; well drained.

Morainic plain and undulating moraine; flat to gently sloping wfth feu slopes to 10 degrees; well drained; few de res- stoas imperfectYy drained.

Lacustrine-veneered morainic plain and undulating moraine; flat to gently

slope8 to 10 degrees; well drained; few depressions imperfectly drafned.

sloping with few

Pockete of thin drift and frost- heaved bedrock rubble present on bedrock.

Ieolated pockets of rubbly and blocky colluvium on bedrock.

m of undifferentiated Between 0.5 to 2.0

coarse-textured outwash and till; boulders conmon component.

Between 1.5 and 3 m of tfll and outwash; former probably dominant.

Betueen 3 and 10 m of till overlying interbedded clay, silt sand, gravel and till (the latter three dominant).

Between 0 and 1 m of undffferentfated c lay , silt. sand, and gravel (rarely to 2.5 m) over 2 to 5 m of till over ipterbedded clay, silt, sand. gravel and till (sand dominant) .

Generally unfrozen with negligible ground ice content.

Scattered pockets of Rock forms stable founda- permafrost m y be present; tion; thawed drift genera ground ice contents low Good foundation material. in drift; active layer 0.5-1.2 m.

Thawed sediment may be unstable foundation material if medium ground ice contents present.

Stable foundation

Scattered pockets of permafrost with low ground ice contents; active layer 0 .5 -1 .2 m.

Permafrost unlikely.

Generally unfrozen; n i l to low ground ice contents.

Permafrost unlikely.

material; till susceptible to frost heave.

Stable foundation matcr- isl; tfll susceptible to frost heave.

Stable foundation material; fine textured sediments. eepecially silty clay, susceptible to frost heave; isolated small volumes of aggregate present.

Rock f a l l s .

Table 4 . 1 Descriptive Legend of Terrain Types at Haines Junction (Cont'd)

f lmLb r mi" a/fLb

Lacurtrine-blanketed undulating moraine including beaches and strandliner; flat to gently sloping with few slopea to 10 degrees; well drained; few de res- lions -erfectPy drained.

xLb mii

aGm

m aLv

morainic plain; Lacurtrine-blanketed

gently to moderately 810 ing with slopes

mderatefy well to to e2 de rees;

well drained.

moraine blanket; Lacurtrine-veneered

gentle to moderate slopes to 15 degrees; moderately well to vel1 drained; few low areas imperfectly drained.

Undulattng outwaph; gentle to moderate

w e l l drained; few doper to 12 degrees;

well to imperfectly low areas wdecatefy drained.

Ouhrash lain capped by wind-Elam rand

gently r l o i feu and silt; flat to

.lo es to Po%grees; vel! drained.

Lacustrine-veneered outwsah plain; flat to very ently sloping; vel! drained.

Lacustrine-veneered outuaah blanket; flat to very gently

drained. sloping; well

Betueen 0 and 1 rn of gravel and sand over

sand (a/f Lb) over till; or becween 0 and 1 e of stlt.and silty sand over 0.5 to 2.0 m of clayey silt (f/r Lb) over till.

m of undifferentfated Between 0.5 and 2.0

clay, silt, nand and gravel (clay and rilt probably moat dominant) over 2 to 5 m of till.

0 t0 1 P Of ELlty

Between 0 and 2 m of sand and gravel over 1 to 4 a o f till over bedrock.

More than 3 a of gravel and sand over interbedded clay. silt, sand and gravel.

Between 0 and 0.5 m of silty sand m e r

and rand; along cliff- 5 1 plur of gravel

to s fine 8and and eift thicken to 4 m pLun.

Between 0 and 0.5 rn.

of silt, nand and fine gravel over 3 m plus of gravel and sand.

of sand and gravel Between 0.5 and 2 IU

over 3 m plus of till;

be discontinuous. sand and gravel may

Permafrost generally absent except poss- i b l y in a feu imperfectly drained areas;

medium to high where ground f e e contents

permafrost present.

Permafrost present. but dintifbution and thickness not known. Ground ice contents

medium to hi h Ln generally Lou. but

clayey stlt f f frozen; active layer, 0.5-1.2 m.

Permafrost llkely present on north-fecing slopea und in low-lying imperfectly drained BTl8il.

Generally unfrozen; negligible ground ice contents.

Ho permafrost,

lo permafrost.

No permafrost.

Stable foundation materials except clayey lacustrine sediments only fair; cla ey silt highly susceptible to frost heave; isolated small volumes of aggregate present in coarser facies (a/fLb).

Stable foundation materials except clayey Lacus-

poor upon thawing; clayey trine materials only fair,

silt highly susceptible to frost heave.

Generally atable foundation material; ttll sueceptlble to frost heave.

Stable foundation material; source of aggregate.

Stable foundation mater- Eolian ial; outwash is source de osfts of aggregate.

deflation if sugject to

disturbed.

Stable foundation material; outwarh and lacustrine veneer are source of aggregate.

Stable foundation mater- i a l ; tiLl susceptible to frost heave; possible source of aggregate.

Descript ive Legend of Ter ra in Types a t Haines Junctfon (cont 'd) Table 4 . 1

Stable foundat ion mater- ia l ; source o f aggrega te .

Lacustrine beaches

posed of outuaoh eroded in scarp com-

( l acus t r ine b l anke t on outuaoh); variable

degrees; w e l l d ra ined . s lopes from 0 t o 30

t a c u s t r i n e p l a i n : f l a t to very gently aloping ( f lcLp, f l d p ) to moderately slopfng (f/mLn) ; occas iona l ly modified b therm- k a r s t ( f l c t p ); f l a t t e r area8 iaper- f e c t l y to m d e r a t e l y ve l1 d ra ined ; slopin a reas modera te ly vefl drained.

Lacus t r ine p l a in ; f l a t ; h p e r f e c t l to moderately we11 drained.

More than 10 m of sand and gravel present .

No permafrost =@ aLb

Betwean 2 and 5 m of c l ay (c) and clayey r i l e (m) over l n t e r - bedded till and

o f s i l t y cPay con- gravel ; up er p a r t

t a ino in te rbeds of silt and s i l t y rand ( f ) .

Permafrost cOmmon i n un i t to depths of 10 m plus; round ice conten ts g rcquent ly medim t o h i g h i n u p p e r 5 m; a c t i v e Layer 0 . 3 t o 1 . 2 m.

Upon thawing s i l t y c l a y poor foundat ion material;

c e p t i b l e t o froet heaving .

s i l t y c l a y and till sus-

Sub jec t t o t h e m k a r s t subsidence i f thermal ly lwdified.

EJmLp. flmLn. f l c L p , f / CLP

Poor foundation mater- i a l upon thawing; thewed sediment sus- c e p t i b l e to f ros t heaving.

Subject t o thermokarst subsidence i f thermally modif ied,

Between 2 and 5 rn of c lay s i l t and

marl ( 0 ) o v e r i n t e r - f i n e rand (f) and

bedded till and grave l ,

Permafroat continuous

Pine Lake; ground i ce to LO m plus except near

medium t o h i h i n upper con ten t s gene ra l ly

5 m; ac t ive Paye r 0 . 3 t o 1 . 2 . m .

of ermafrost ; medim I r r e g u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n

t o KLgh ground ice con- t e n t s p o s s i b l e in upper 2 rn. Permafrost unl ikely.

f I 0Lp

Poor foundat ion mater-

f ros t heaving . la l ; suecept fb le to

Minor t h e m k a r s t subsidence. of peat and organic

Between 0 and 1 m

silt over 0 . 5 t o 2 m of s f l t , c l a y and f ine sand over till.

More than 5 m of gravel ( A€) or i n t e r b e d h silt, sand and r a v e l ( d f ) ; occasionafly having

and f i n e sand on sur face .

up t o 0 . 5 1 of silt

Organic-veneered lacus t r ine b lanket ; f l a t t o v e r y g e n t l y s loping; imperfect ly t o poorly drained.

A l l w i a l - f a n ; g e n t l y

well t o w e l l d ra ined . sloping; moderately

Some r i s h of floodin& and stream avuls ion.

Good foundat ion mater ia l .

Al luvial fan; gent ly s loping imperfect ly drained.

More than 3 m of h t e r b e d d c d o r e n i c s i l t , s i f t and s f l t y sand over sand and grave l .

Between 0 and 1 m of sand or s i l ty sand

Thin patches of permafrost pOS8fbly resent; medium t o igh ground ice con- K

t en t s poss ib l e .

Poor foundat ion mater - i a l ; s u s c e p t i b l e t o f rost heaving.

fAf Risk of f looding.

Lacustrine-veneered a l l u v i a l f a n ; gent ly sloping; imperfect ly to moderately well drained.

Permafros t un l ike ly . Good foundat ion mater-

aggregate . ial ; source of

Some rish .

snd stream 8VUlSiOn.

of flooding or sand. silt

( S I ;

and c lav fLv over rrnvc) ( X F )

Table 4 .1 Descr ipt ive Legend of Te t ra fn Types a t Hainee Junction (con'd)

f f a A t S t r e a m t e r r a c e ; f l a t ; h p e r f e c t l y t o a a d e r - aee ly vel1 drained with few a t e a a , poorly drained.

cLv, mLv Lacustrine-veneered Z!+ a a l l u v i a l p l a i n ;

f l a t cLv to gen t ly

or s loderatelv s lon-

cLb * drained; s loping imperfect ly to poorly

areas moderately well to wel l drained.

Lacustrine-blanketed a l l u v i a l p l a i n ; f l a t

feu areas moderately to gent ly rloping;

s l o p f n g ; f l 4 t &rea¶ imperfect ly to =der- a t e l y w e l l drained;

a t e l y w e l l t o well sloping areas -der-

drained.

Al luvia l p la in ; f lat wi tb fCrp cbnnela ; modera te ly u e l l dralned; channels poorly drained.

Peat-veneered a1 lwial p la in ;

b p e r f e c t f y d r a i n e d . f l a t ; poosly to

f laAp-A f l o o d p l a i n ; f l a t

MP-A flgAp-A t o ently s10ppfa

vita few minor mcarps;

a t e l y w e l l drained ia tperfect ly to -der-

well dra ined C a p ) . (f/rAp, f/ghp) t o

aCa Talus apron; moderate

drained. t o steep s lopes ; -11

Between 0 . 5 and 1 . 5 ra of s i l t and sandy stlt over 3 II Lus of sand and grave!.

Between 0 . 5 and 1.0 1~

and randy a f l t (m) over 3 m p l u s of sand grave l ; few thin bedr of pea t i n c lay silt and s i l t y send; few gravelly beda.

Of C h y ( C ) and 8 f l t

Between 0 . 5 and 2.0 m of c lay and s i l t y clay over 3 DL p l u s of sand and g rave l ; few thin beds of p e a t i n c lay and s i l t y c l a y s ; rare thin g r a v e l l y bed..

Between 1 and 2 81 plus of s i l t y rand. 8and and sandy grave l ; boulders lag preaent under thfa veneer of

channels. s i l t and c l a y i n

Between 0 and 1.0 a

and sand. 3 m of c lay . milt

of si l t and milty sand Between [I and 1.5 m

over 3 m Ius of sand and grave!.

Of peat OVaT 0.5 t O

Between 0 . 5 and 5 IR plus of rubble and blocks over uncon-

and bedrock. solfdated sediments

Permafros t genera l ly absent , but few patcbes of th in permafros t p resent wi tb lw t o medtum ground ice conten ts .

Permafrost general ly absent , but feu patches of th in permafros t poss ib l e w i th 1w t o medium ground ice conten ts ,

Permafroat general ly

of thin permafrost absent , bu t feu patches

poss ib le wi th l o w t o medium ground i c e conten t .

Permafrost unl ikely.

Permafrost generelly

patches of thin perma- abrent , but i s o l a t e d

No p e r m a f r o ~ t .

r o s t p o s s i b l e .

Permafrost vfth l o w ground ice contents probable on north- facing s lopes only.

Fine grained sedlmenta

poas ib le uource of sub jec t t o f ro s t heave ;

aggregate.

Fine ground sediments m b j e c t t o f r o s t heave; improbable source of aggregate.

Fine- rained sediment, poor foundation mater- i a l end sub jec t t o f ros t heave .

Fair to good foundat ion material; f iner -gra ined f a c i e u s u b j e c t t o f r o s t beave .

Fine - r a ined s edhen t s poor foundation mater- i a l and s u b j e c t t o f r o s t heave.

Posrrible source of aggregate .

Unstable foundat ion due to loosenesa of mater ia l and s lopes; p086ible

aggregate . source of crushed

Uare flood-

possible . ing

Very rare flooding poss ib le .

Very r a re flooding

poss ib le . in low areas

Channels subjec t to f looding .

Very f requent f looding.

Rock f a l l s

xcm

Table 4.1 Descriptive Legend of Terrain Types at Hainea Junction (con'd)

Landslide; gentle to Five metres plus of moderate slopes t o mixed clay, silt. 12 degrees; moderately sand. gravel and well drained. till *

Pemafrost. generally Thawed fine-grained sedi- with low ground ice menta subject to frost contents; actfve layer heave. 0.5 to 1.2 m.

20

and peat in other poorly drained areas has also accumulated in the time interval since the Macauley glaciation.

Haines Junction lies in the zone of discontinuous permafrost. At Haines Junction permafrost is discontinuous and generally very thin; the active layer is relatively thick except on poorly drained benches having thin veneers of peat along the Dezadeash River. Permafrost is widespread in the poorly drained lacustrine plain west of Pine Lake and on north-facing slopes south of the Dezadeash River. Organic materials and fine-grained lacustrine deposits, especially near Pine Lake, are characterized by medium to high ice contents.

4.2 Terrain Types and Theix Characterization

Map 4.1 shows the distribution of terrain types in the Haines Junction area. The geomorphology, slope distribution, drainage, nature and thickness of materials, permafrcst 13stribu- tion, ground ice contents, active layer thicknesses, ground sta- b i l i t y , engineering characteristics and potential hazards f o r each mapped terrain are given in Table 4.2 . Details of grain size analysis are given in Appendix B.

4 . 3 Suitability Maps

Suitability maps for road construction, building construction and underground utility installation, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, septic systems, and construction materials including granular materials are presented (Maps 4.3.1 and 4 . 3 . 5 ) . These suitability maps were derived following the techniques outlined in Section 3.3 af this report.

4.3.1 Suitability f o r Road Construction

The suitability map for road construction (Map 4 . 3 . 1 ) assumes that roads for year-round use are to be constructed and

21

Pamufroac andL i c e contmtr (Pf)

Bedrock dcpeh ( b t )

No hatarda No hararda Slow near aurfacr moil cteop; t ro l r ted

o f faulein wichfn 1A.r LO,OO! yoera

rock f a l l ; evidence

Slopes between 12 and 1s dogtee5

water cabla 1e.r fmperfece t o poor;

chan 0 . 5 m

Annual flooding

Lea. th?n 0 . 5 n

Flooding mare than once a y m u

h f I 8 t P L l y naar surfrc.

Thick pcoc; stenas stareet than 50 percent

22

maintained on undisturbed terrain. For the purposes of drainage it is assumed the roads are graded, and ditches are present where required. The subgrade is to consist of materials underlying the roadway and the base material is to be locally obtained where p o s s i b l e . No provision is made on the suitability map f o r the source of surfacing material, which is assumed to be stabilized crushed gravel, till or rock.

. .

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect the initial construction and how they affect load capacities and maintenance. Slope, drainage, permafrost, bedrock depth, and material primarily affect initial construction, whereas f lood hazard, ice contents, and miscellaneous hazards primarily affect maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for highway and road construction and maintenance are defined in Table 4.3.1.

4 . 3 . 2 Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation

The suitability map for building construction and utility installation (Map4.3.2) assume that buildings are to have basements and utilities are buried in the ground. It is assumed that standard construction procedures are used except that special insulative procedures are used in areas of permafrost. It is also assumed that ground conditions are such that some mobility is viable in the vicinity of the buildings, and that utility and ground surface maintenance is minimal.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and how they affect the continued stability and maintenance of the building, building site and utility. Slope , permafrost, bedrock depth, material composition and stoniness primarily affect construction and excavation, whereas drainage, f lood hazard, ice contents, and hazards due to

1 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I

23

Slopea bmcwman 12 and 20 d r p r n s

Naa.

No

Impmrfmtly or poorly drainodl <.5 m t o water cable

Perufrosr vich up CO 1 matfa of

mmc b w U y madtrtn to high icm con-

aedhmne 4~ depth c m c s ; irolatod

with high io. concmcr

near-aurfacm 8mdi-

AanwL flooding

O r t a n k a grucex grurmt than SO% shaa 50%; atone.

24

mass wastage, glacier advances, faulting, liquefaction primarily affect stability and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability f o r building construction and utility installation are defined in Table 4 . 3 . 2 .

4 . 3 . 3 Suitability and Optimum Locations for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills

The suitability map for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills assumes that the sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are to be constructed through shallow excavations or through the construction of berms on the undisturbed ground surface. The prevention of pollution through the movement of surface or ground water to terrain surrounding the facilities was considered to be of prime importance in their location. Minimal maintenance of berms and other confinements to the movement of pollutants was also considered paramount.

The guidelines f o r sanitary landfills are gener- a l l y less severe than f o r sewage lagoons as no f l u i d pollutants are initially introduced. Thus the suitability maps give a more conservative evaluation of terrain f o r use of sanitary landfills than sewage lagoons; in many cases the suitability classification f o r sanitary landfills can be adjusted to the next higher suitability classification to that which is shown on the suitability maps for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and berm emplacement and how they affect continued berm stability and prevention of pollution. Slope, flood hazard, permafrost, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advance, faulting, liquefaction, bedrock depth and material composition were considered primarily f o r their influence on pollutant confinement.

25

Locations where grain size analysis have been completed are plotted on Map 4 . 3 . 3 and show the basis on which the material compositions and permeabilities have been related. Grain size distributions f o r typical materiais collected during the field investigations and located on map 4 . 3 . 3 axe shown in Appendix B.

In addition to drainage and material stoninese, many of the above terrain factors would also affect lagoon and landfill construction and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are defined in Table 4 . 3 . 3 .

Areas containing possible optimum locations f o r sewage lagoons are indicated on map 4 . 3 . 3 by patterns. The area analyzed f o r optimum locations is restricted to a 15 sq. km area where maps with contour intervals of 1.5 m (5 ft) are available. These optimum locations are restricted by a terrain suitability classification of G or FG and slopes of less than 1.5 degrees. It is our opinion that the Neoglacial lacustrine terrace immediately southwest of BM1956.0 at Haines Junction is the most suitable and practical location f o r a sewage lagoon because of the impermeable layer of clay on this bench, i t s relatively good drainage, the absence of permafrost, its elevation above the probable maximum flood level of the Dezadeash River and its location below the existing sewage lagoon. It l i e s outside the boundaries 'of Kluane National Park and could be easily screened by tree cover from Hoines Junction and the Alaska Highway,

Ideal sanitary landfill sites abound in the Haines Junction area, but are probably best located in areas classified a s FG and well away from stream and drainage courses such as most of the area adjacent to Haines Junction in a north- easterly direction.

26

No p d r 0 . e

_ . P0two.n 0.9" and 1 . 0 mere$ ( m o m r )

S i l t vich m o l w organic c ~ n f ~ t l r ; mandy a t ravmkly a i l t or cloy: oomo c i l l ; 10-25 par

cant stoner f

27

4 . 3 . 4 Suitability for Septic Systems

The suitability map for septic systems (Map 4 . 3 . 4 ) assumes that the effluent from a septic tank is to be distributed in the natural surficial material by means of a sub-surface or raised t i l e bed. It was assumed that it would be required that water bodies and water supplies within.60 mctresand surface water are not to be polluted by the septic system. It is also assumed that the systems are to be emplaced by standard procedures and that ground surface maintenance following emplacement is to be minimal.

The permeability of surffcial materials within a terrain type was considered extremely important in evaluating terrain types for septic field suitability because the absorption of effluent without the pollution of water supplies or water bodies greater than 60 ..metres from the septic field i s of prime importance. Grain s ize distributions f o r typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on map 4 . 3 . 4 are shown in Appendix B.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial sewage s y s t e m emplacement and maintenance and how they affect absorbtion of effluent and pollution prevention. The material composition, mainly i t a permeability, was considered of prime importance in evaluating terrain types for septic field suitability. Other terrain factors such as slope, drainage, permafrost, flood hazards, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, liquefaction and faulting, and bedrock depth primarily affect the continued prevention of pollution of adjacent surface water, water bodies and water supplies; and t o a lesser degree the emplacement and maintenance of the s e p t i c systems. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability f o r septic systems are defined in Table 4 . 3 . 4 ,

28 Tabla 4 .3 .0 Totrain Propmrty Guidalinaa tor Aammssing SUiCAbiliCy t o t Smptie S y l t l l n s

Diffarant states of Individual terrain frccora arm eatabliahad that allow Ch8 suitability o€ chc undiacurbad tmrraln tvpr t o ba ovalwtod for construction and mincanaca o f soptic aystams.

Degrmm o f Terrain Suitrbllity

tmrrain Factor ( 8 p b O l ) Coed * C Fairly Gaod - FG Fair (Marginal) - F Poor - P (vcry poor)

Un6uitabLc~ - U

Laor than 3 dytaea

Wall. drakned; v4c.f tabla. d a q e r t h 1.5 m

taes ehan 8 drgraoa

Modararolp well to imp~rfoctlp drainad; vacaf cablas ruualiy 0 .5 m balm OWfAC.

None

gloclrr rdv4nkm. mte. (hz)

Smdroek deprh ( b t )

Greater chan 1,s m

L t o 1.5 m - 0 .5 t o 1 m

Gravel. clay, s i l t ,

grnacmr than 50 rconm aoatmc

pasemnt; poac

29

4 . 3 . 5 Suitability and Availability of Construction Materials

The suitability map (Map 4.3 .5) assumes that the construction materials are to be used as aggregate or fill. The suitability of the different terrain types are evaluated according to the quality and quantity of the surficial materials within it, and the workability and ease of extraction of those materials. Materials that are required to be impermeable such as dikes are excluded from consideration; the suitability f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills give a partial assessment of suitability f o r impermeable materials. The suitability of bedrock as a construction material has not been evaluated. Terrain types containing gravel and sand with potential as aggregate are given the highest suitability classification as they can easily be adapted to most construction purposes. Other terrain types are evaluated on the basis of the compressibility, compactibility, susceptibility to frost action and surface trafficability of the surficial materials within them.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect the usefulness and versatility of the contained materials as a construction material, the ease o r difficulty of extraction, and the volumes that could be extracted from a unit area. Material composition and stoninesa primarily affects usefulness as a construction material, whereas slope, drainage, permafrost, f lood hazard, miscellaneous hazards, and bedrock depth affect the extractable volumes per unit area and the ease or difficulty of extraction. The terrain property guidelines are defined in Table 4.3.5.

A number of sources of aggregate have been outlined on map 4 . 3 . 5 . The grave1:sand:fines ratios (based on grain size distribution obtained during this and earlier investigations) and the cu. metres per hectare of deposits (based on our estimate of minimal extraction thicknesses) are indicated f o r each viable

30

Craafat than 30 dmgrarr

v o w fraqumt;

anee par y o ~ r f1ood.d wre than

Lars chbe 0 .5 m

h a c , organic a i l c r ; grucrr e b n 50 p r r c m t atoaaa

31

source. Further t e s t pitting is required t o determine quantities more accurately, No attempt has been made t o assess the sources as potential concrete . . . . aggregate.

Adequate supplies of gravel and sand appear to be present in the Haines Junction area for future development. However, since transportation costs are critical, the community might consider estimating the volumes required for future development and reserving a portion of the closest deposits f o r this purpose.

4 . 3 . 6 Recreation and CottaRe Areas - Pine Lake

Pine Lake is the focus of some recreational and cottage activity f o r the resident+ of Haines Junction. Such recreational activity usuallv involves some lake access and increased foot and vehicle travel, Cottages involve buildings, generally w i t h w t basements and with some sewage disposal, preferably a septic system.

Map 4 . 3 . 2 , which gives the suitability for building construction and utility installation, and map 4 . 3 . 4 , which gives the suitability f o r septic systems, are a guide to areas most suitable for recreational and cottage development. Individual assessment of potential sites is still required. Basically, the southwestern shoreline of Pine Lake seems most suitable (FG - mt, w t , map 4.3.2; F - mt, map 4 . 3 . 4 ) because of limitations imposed by permafrost, materials and bedrock along other shorelines. Individual sites may not be suitable f o r development because of improper lake access due to steep slopes o r a narrow fringe of swampy ground. Isolated areas may be present along the northern shoreline (F - sl, br, wt and P - br, mt, map 4 . 3 . 2 ; F - sl, p f , P - br, mt, sl, U - br, mt, sl, map 4 . 3 . 4 ) that are suitable for campgrounds o r individual cottages; each site would require a

separate assessment. Also raised tile beds may be acceptable in some areas of relatively shallow bedrock.

32

The present campground and boat launching facility would appear to be undesirable in that continued maintenance, fill and aggregate will be required to counteract thermokarst caused by permafrost degradation and ground i ce melting where the ground's thermal regime has been altered by tree and brush clearing or road construction.

4 . 4 Unique Features

Particularily unique and interesting Quaternary features are shown on map 4.1.

Most features relate to the Neoglacial lakes that once - submerged much of the Haines Junction area. At @ the highest

At locality 0, beaches are present that record high levels of Glacial Lake Champagne. Similarily, strandlines at @ cut in a talus apron were formed by this lake.

During postglacial tfme marl has been deposited in the Pine Lake basin. It can be seen in the shallow waters of Pine Lake and may still be forming @ . At @ marl is exposed in banks being undermined by themohrat.

Excellent examples of thermokarst are present at @ where thawing is being accelerated by an adjacent water body and

33

recent road construction activity and at @ where thawing has been promoted by the presence of an old road bed,

A t 0 gravel and sand are exposed that predate late Wisconsin till and glaciolacustrine deposits; and at @ landslide is present. Cliff-top dunes, in part still active, are present at locality 0. At @, glacially scoured steep slopes are present.

Most features relating to Neoglacial Lake Alsek can be found at other localities within and beyond the limits of map 4.1. However, the beaches at locality @ are a type locality and should be preserved. The present p i t should be only expanded to the east of its present locality and should be regraded to a more aesthet- i ca l ly acceptable forn. The marl at Pine Lake is unique f o r areas this far west of Whitehorse, but are not confined to one locality at Pine Lake. Other features, although of particular interest, are well distributed beyond the limits of map 4.1 in the Yukon.

34

4.5 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of Hainea Junction is summarized under the headings of well survey, water chemistry, test drillink results, groundwater flow regime, and water supply potential.

4 .5 1 Well Survey

A well survey of Haines Junction revealed 42 wells (located on Fig4.5.1) in the community; at least 8 were dug wells and the remainder were d r i l l e d (Table4.5.1) Some of this presentation is based on discussions with a local retired well driller who estimated that a total of SO t o 60 wells had been constructed in the village (the wells not identified by t h i s study are primarily dug wells which are apparently not in use at the present time)

Seven wells in Haines Junction were samphd to provide water quality information about aquifers in the community. In addition, a grab sample of Dezdeash River water was analyzed. Water chemis,try data are surmarized as Table 4 . 5 . 2 of this report.

4 . 5 . 2 Water Chemistry

Two wells are used to furnish the Haines Junction communal water supply, a shallow well (14 m deep) and a deep well (134 m deep). Samples of both wells were taken at the well head. A second sample of the shallow conrmunal wellwater which was

supplying the village during the summer of 1979 was taken a t the Gateway Motel. The shallow w e l l samples showed almost identical chemical compositions.

Water from the shallow town well is moderately soft (69.1 mg/l hardness) and is not highly mineralized (total dissolved solids about 140 mg/l). The water is an alkali earth

35 Table 4 . 5 . 1 Haines Junction Well Survey

Static Description Depth Level Use

Log and Yield Remarks

Brewsters Hotel

R.C.M.P. shallow well

Stardust Motel

Watsons Garage

Parks Canada deep well

Public Health Clinic

Pine Lake Campsite

Community wells: No. 1

Community well : No. 2

Two wells near Stardust Hotel

Two wells at Blue Mountain garage

Two wells a t school

Domes t i c residence across from church on Alaska Highway

Dalton and Cairnes St.

156 rn

<30 m

60 m

27 m

158 m

7 m

I

13.7 m

-

23 m no data on one well

no data

no data

24 m

L Hotel

9 . 3 m arden + fawn

- Motel

- commercial

- Park headquarters

2.4 m not in use

- campground

domestic

abandoned

- abandoned

30 m - not in use

high

- *

- none

log repro- duced in text

-

-

log repro- duced in t e x t

see t e x t

-

c

-

completed yiild into gravel 7100 1/ min

36 Table 4 . 5 . 1 (cont 'd)

Klondike Inn d r i l l e d - 10 wells (dug wells and d r i l l e d ) 27 m to

137 m

Ogilvie Road (one dri l led well + four dug wells)

Domestic residence on Black S t

Residence behind Gateway Hotel

Residence 1 south of Ogilvie S t .

Residence 2 south of Ogilvie S t .

Residence 3 south of Ogilvie St.

Community Center

House behind Community Center

House north side of Community Center

Yukon Electric

Yukon Government Yard

14 m

dril led - 24 m

hotel

not in use

not in use

not in use

18 rn I not in u s e

- not i n use

14 m

9 m

- not in use

- not in use

- not in use

drilled - not in, use well

drilled - not in use well

- 27 m aquifer very hard, deeper aquifers much softer

high y i e l d 7100 1/ min

7100 l/ - sec

130 1/ silt in sec water i f

pumped harder

Table 4.5 1 (cont ' d) 37

Refinery well

Airport over 150 rn

abandoned

domestic low, no data less than 50 I / min

Table 4 . 5 . 2 WATER CllEMISTRY DATA (Champagne - Haines Junction) ( i n mg/l unless indicated)

mp,/l. Surface Water U M I O 8

" - - or Approx (PYH Sample I?Co,- Cond. Ca* btg* Haf K' Fe-2 Mn-2 No,- C1- Sol- PoA- Aquifer TDS Hardness CaCo?)

Town laell 2 86 215 5 . 6 2.3 32.5 1.7 - 0 5 - - - 13 214 Deep aquifer 150 23.4 very (at well head) s o f t

Town water 89 200 20.1 4.6 2.6 .75 - - . 5 3 - 8.6 - Shallow 140 69 .L mod - supply well 81 aqui€er soft (Gateway Hotel)

Town well f l 87 200 20.1 4 . 5 2.5 .75 ,1 - .22 3,5 18 - Shallow 14 0 69 - 0 mod, (at pump station) aquifer soft

Parks Canada 156 360 5 . 5 2 . 6 6 2 . 5 1.0 .05 - 1,86 7 . O 19 459 Deep aquifer 252 24.4 very Headquartdrs soft

Brews ter8 100 250 4.9 1.4 32.5 0 .37 .ll - .22 - 19 61 Deep aquifer 175 17.9 very Mot e l s o f t

R. 'c .w.P. wel l 79 215 20.0 4.7 2 . 7 5 0 . 7 5 .02 - . 3 5 3.5 12 - Dug well 150 6 9 . 3 mod. (in garage) soft

Stardust l#otel 114 405 10.3 8 .7 50.0 1.87 - - - 5 . 3 72 30 Deep aquifer 283 6 1 . 4 mod. soft

Kusawa Lake 14 66 2 . 5 .6 . 5 .25 0.05 - - - - - Lake sample 46 8.7 very so€ t

Dezdeash River 48 128 9 . 7 2 . 7 1.75 .47 .O5 - - - 3 . 7 - River sample 89 35.3 soft: (Champagne)

Dezdeash River 70 170 16.3 4 - 6 2 . 2 5 . 5 .13 - - - 9 . 8 3 1 River sample 119 5 9 . 6 s o f t (Haines Junction)

39

(calcium with minor magnesium) bicarbonate sulphate water type. The deep well water is very soft ( 2 3 . 4 mg/l hardness) but is slightly more highly mineralized than the shallow communal w e l l . This water is also an alkali earth bicarbonate sulphate water but sodium is the predominant cation and minor element concentrations are dissimilar to the shallower aquifer.

The Parks Canada headquarters' well, (158m deep), the Stardust Motel well (60 m deep) and the Brewstera Hotel well (156 m deep) a11 have alkali earth (sodium rich) bicarbonate sulphate waters. Significant variation is evident in the chemical data between these wells however which indicates that they are not interconnected or associated. The aquifer elevations (435 m, 534 and 446 metres respectively) and the large distances between these three wells supports this conclusion.

All of these deep aquifers have moderately to very sof t water and are m l y moderately mineralized (total dissolved solids range from 175-283 mg/l)

One shallow d r i l l e d well located at the R . C . M . P . residence was also sampled. The water of this well is almost identical to commnal well No. 1 and Dezdeash River water. (Moderately sof t calcium, minor magnesium-bicarbonate, minor sulphate water . )

In general, water from all the wells sampled is chemically potable and is considered to be of good quality for human consump tion.

4.5.3 Test Drillinp Results

Detailed well log and hydraulic data are available f o r three wells in Haines Junction; the Parks Canada headquarters'

I I 1 I I I-

I I

A

40

t

0

I- o W

-

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

41

well drilled in 1973 and completed in 1977, community well No. 1 drilled in 1974 and community well No. 2 drilled in 1978. A summary follows :

Parks Canada Well

me drillers Stratigraphic log is included as Table 4 . 5 . 3 a. In 1973 the well was drilled 143 m into boulders and the casing was dynamited to act as a well screen. A 2.2 l/minute y i e l d was obtained. In 1977 the well was deepened t o 174 m, screened and developed. An artesian well which flows at a rate of 68 litres/ minute was developed.

Testing during July 1977 revealed that the well water contained large concentrations of suspended sediment even though Park personnel permitted the well to flow freely for a 6 month period after drilling, Pumping at rates in excess of the 68 litres/ minute artesian flow still cause high s i l t concentration problems at the present time.

Community Well No. 1

The stratigraphic log of this well is included as T a b l e 4 . 5 . 3 b of this report. The well is located within 10 metres of the Dezdeash River, It penetrates a sequence of lacustrine and alluvial sediments and i s completed with slotted casing into a thin glaciofluvial gravel stratum at a depth of 13.7 metres. This aquifer which is only .9 m thick was pumped at 227 l/minute f o r 6 hours without drawdown. Direct recharge from the river is evidently occuring as indicated by the chemical similarity of each water type and the fact that a slight northward gradient has been established in this aquifer by piezometric level surveying (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd , 1974)

A transmissivity of 9.4 x l o 4 iglday foot and a storativity of 2.8 x l o d 2 has been calculated for this aquifer.

I I I I I I

42

Stratigraphic Log of Parks Canada Well

Table: 4 . 5 . 3 a Haines Junction

Depth Drillers Probable (metres) Lithalogical Description Terrain Unit

0-10.9 10.9 - 13.4 1 3 . 4 - 17.6 17.6 - 21.3 21.3 - 23.2 23.2 - 32.6 32.6 - 39.6 39.6 - 45.7 4 5 . 7 - 5 7 . 9 5 7 . 9 - 59.4 59.4 - 67.9 67.9 - 81.7 81.7 - 90.8 90.8 - 96.3 96.3 - 97.2 97.2 - 99.6 99.6 - 100.5 100.5 - 101.5 101.5 - 106.4 106.4 - 106.9 106.9 - 138.3 138.3 - 138.9 138.9 - 140.2 140.2 - 141.7 141.7 - 143.6 143.6 - 174 m

L or A

M

"

L or A

hardpan + boulders silty sand hardpan with boulders M+G hardpan with clay sandy gravel sand, s i l t , some gravel C l & Y

fine sand + silt hardpan silty clay black s i l t f ine sand/si l t clay hardpan sand + fine gravel fine sand hardpan fine sand + gravel hardpan s i l t , sand hardpan s i l t , sand hardpan boulders bedrock no log kept when well deepened

G + M

I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1

43 Table: 4.5.3b(cont'd)

Stratigraphy Community Well No. 1 Haines- Junction

Depth (m) Drillers Log Terrain Unit

0 to 1.3 sandy silt L or A 1.3 to 5 .2 sandy gravel to silt 5 . 2 to 5 . 5 fine black sand I

5.5 to 7.0 grey till 7.0 to 7.6 gravel 7.6 to 13.7 till

- A

M G M 7

44 Table: 4.5.3c(cont1d)

Stratigraphy of Community Well No. 2

Haines Junction

Depth (m) Driller ' s Log Terrain Unit -I

0 - . 3 gravel - A . 3 - 3 . 4 clay L 3 . 4 - 4 . 3 4 . 3 - 8 . 5 gravel + clay 8.5 - 21.0 till with gravel M 21.0 - 3 9 . 3 clay till with some gravel

7

gravel

3 9 . 3 - 64.0 clay silt with gravel 64.0 - 109.4 clay till with gravel 109.4 .. 113.9 s i l t with gravel 113.9 - 118.3 till, gravel 118.3 - 121.6 sandy silt 121.6 - 133.2 gravelly till 133.2 - 134.4 gravel

M + G

FIGURE 4.5.4

GROUNDWATER FLOW

HAINES JUWCTION

LEGEND

0 PROBA3LE LOCAL GROUWDWATER FLOW MRPCTIOMS

PROBhBLE REGIOWIL GROUNDWATER FLOW DlRECTlOWS

ARLAS WITH HIGH RLCCtIROE POTENTiAL

AREAS WITH LOW RECHARGE W T E N T L A L . . . . . .

O b 2 I k n

46

Community Well No, 2

This well was drilled in 1977 in an attempt to alleviate cold water freezing problems encountered during utilization of the shallow river connected aquifer described above. The t o t a l depth of the well is 134 metres with three aquifers identified during drilling, a shallow gravel ( 3 . 3 to 4.2 rn depth), a deep till (76.5 - 78.3 m) and a deep gravel (133 - 135 m) (Table 4.5.3~ and F i g . 4 . 5 . 3 ) . This well was completed into the middle aquifer and is capable of producing a sustained yield of 900 litreslminute (200 i p g d . A high suspended sediment (silt) problem has existed in this well since it was completed, although the water is soft, only slightly mineralized and is usually 6' CelcFus during winter months.

4.5.4 Groundwater Flow

Existing published rapor,ts on the hydrogeology of the Haines Junction area do not address the subject of groundwater flow due to the lack of piezometric elevation data in the village. The following information about flow regimes is based an the topographic and geological information presented in this repor t

The till and glaciolacustrine clay/silt terrain units in the study area are impermeable (Table 4.5.4: K=lOe5 cm/sec o r less) and do not permit any groundwater recharge (Figure 4 . 5 . 4 ) . No relationship between topography and recharge or groundwater flow directions are likely throughout the village. Permeable units are restricted t o the alluvial fan, colluviumlrock and openwork glaciofluvial gravel units on the mountain slopes south and north (Canyon Mountain) of the village. The fact that the three deep wells mentioned in the previous section of this report are flowing wells indicates that a hydraulic connection is present between these recharge areas and deeper aquifers under the village. As mentioned, aquifers at the Park office, Brewsters Hotel and

Table: 4.5.4

Sample No.

SY 6

SY 8

SY 2

89 PY

SP 1

123 PY

47

Haines Junction Grain Size and Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements

Hydraulic

(cm/sec) Location Description Conductivity

Haines Junction Lacustrine (Lb) less than 9 x l oa6 s i l t

Haines Junction T i l l (M) less than 9 x

Pine Lake Marl 1.23 x

Haines Junction Gravel

Haines Junction Gravel

Marshall Creek Gravel

3 . 7 3 x

2 . 5 x 10-1

2.07 x

48

Community Well No. 2 are not well interconnected as evidenced by elevation and water chemistry variations between them. These aquifers probably are thin glaciofluvial gravel units interstrati- f i e d with thick s i l t y till sequences (c.f, Figure 4 . 5 . 3 ) As such, they are apparently only several metres in maximum thickness and are likely to have a channel, not blanket morphology. Yields from these zones are restricted by the s i ze of the aquifer (i.e. boundary conditions exist) and high siltlturbidity problems when pumped at high volumes. Interference between deep wells in these units is a distinct possibility. A northerly regional flow direction (figure 4.5.4) is estimated through these glaciof luvial aquifers

Communal well 1 recharges from the Dezdeash River and a northerly local flow is indicated from piezometric measurements in this area. (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1974) - It is possible that the river is influent along its bed both Up and downstream from the village with older alluvial sand/gravel strat&& feeding some neighbouring shallow or even moderately deep wells in the village.

Local southerly flow and recharge to Pine Lake from permeable units on Canyon Mountain is possible. However, the extent of movement from this recharge area towards Haines Junction cannot be evaluated on existing data.

4 . 5 . 5 Water Supply Potential

Two sources of future groundwater supplies fo r Haines Junction are evident

1) An additional shallow well tapping near surface alluvial material near the DezadeashRiver floodplain. The surficial materials act as a f i l ter gallery to reduce the high turbidity of the DezadeashRiver to acceptable levels. This type of supply will provide high yields but the necessity to heat cold water (o°C in

49

winter) is a major economic constraint to this type of supply development.

2) An additional deep well into one' of glaciofluvial lenses which underlie the village. Uncertain and low y i e l d s , high silt/tuxbidity concentrations and high drilling and construction costs are major constraints t o utilization of deep aquifers, However, water temperatures of up to 4OC can be expected in winter from these aquifers and heating costB will be reduced significantly as a consequence.

Stanley and Associates L t d . (1979) estimate that an additional 2.6 l / s (35 igpm) is needed to augment existing groundwater yields at present. However, at present neither the Parks well or the Community well No, 2 provide this yield without becoming unfit for drinking due to high silt concentrations. In addition a recently constructed (summer 1979) well at the airport was d r i l l e d to a.depth of over 150 metres and obtained a water supply which was barely adequate for a single domestic residence (TNTA L t d . , Personal Communication), It is felt that new deep wells are a questionable potential source of high water-volumes as a consequence. The decision to d r i l l a new deep well or shallow well in the village should be based on a careful evaluation of existing hydrogeological data as well as a recent cost / benefit analysis. The water quality from a l l sources is chemically potable fo r human consumption however.

50

5.0 DESTRUCTION BAY

5.1 Settingl

Destruction Bay is located on the southwest shore of Kluane Lake in the Shakwak Trench, which is the physiographic expression of a large fault system t ha t transects both Alaska and Yukon Territory, and that has been active during the late Tertiary and Pleistocene. At Destruction Bay, the ground surface rises gradually from about 780 metres at Kluane Lake to about 1120 metres at the edge of the Shakwak Trench, where a 800 metre escarpment forms the sharp boundary between the Shakwak Trench and Kluane Ranges, At Destruction Bay, itself, the terrain is gently sloping or undulating except f o r some small scarps of 10-15 metres farmed by stream dissection and wave erosion near Kluane Lake.

At Destruction Bay, thick unconsolidated deposits ara the results of deposition during several Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods, and include till, outwash, glaciolacuatrine silt and clay, and alluvial silt, sand and gravel, Most of the surface materials shown on map 5.1, and figures 5.5.la, b were deposited during or after the Macauley glaciation. During this glaciation a large trunk valley glacier flowed northwest along the Shakwak Trench. At Destruction Bay undulating moraine (tMm), outwash (aGp, f/aGp, aGv), and during its later phases, loess (mEv) were deposited during this glaciation (Table 5.1).

During the waning stages of the Macauley glaciation, Kluane Lake drained to the northwest. However, during the hypsithermal, the Kaskawulsh Glacier at the head of the Slims River retreated far up its valley and allawed Kluane Lake to drain t o the Alsck River and t o be lowered by over 40 metres. Although rapid formation and aggradation of the alluvial-fans flanking the Kluane Ranges occurred following deglaciation of the Shakwak

51

Trench some stream incis ion probably occurred near the present edge of Kluane Lake as the streams graded to the lower level of Kluane Lake.

During Neoglacial time, the Kaskawulsh Glacier re- advanced, blocked the drainage of Kluane Lake t o the Alsek River, and caused Kluane Lake to rise to an elevation 10 to 12 metres above i t s present elevation. A new outlet (the present Kluane River) was re-established t o the northwest and Kluane Lake quickly returned to near i t s present level. This new level of Kluane probably caused further aggradation and a deterioration of drainage on the alluvial-fans. The alluvium deposited by streams crossing the alluvial-fans ranges from clayey silt and silty sand (EAb, fAf) to sand and gravel (&E) to interbedded mixtures of both types (xAf). Peat (pOv) has begun to accumulate on parts of the inactive fans whose surface is underlain by fine- grained sediments.

The Neoglacial rise in the level of Kluane Lake has resulted in some areas below elevations of about 792 metres having a capping of wave-washed material (aLb). Fine-grained lacustrine sediments (cLv, xLp) have been deposited in sheltered bays. Modern wave action continues to modify beach ridges and beaches (aLr) at lake level. Shoreline erosion appears to b e moderate a t Destruction Bay.

Destruction Bay lies in an area where permafrost is near continuous. Only those units, eg. alluvial-fans, that are frequented by surface streams (parts of xAf, fAf, f/aAf) and floodplains or low terraces lacking a significant capping of fine- grained sediment and peat (gAp, gAf) are free of permafrost. Even those portions of alluvial-fans having permafrost at their surface often have taliks throughout their tota l thickness becaum of ground water percolating through them t o Kluane Lake. Klwrne Lake itself may also cause the thickness of permafrost t o b e re la t ive ly t h i n near it. The total thickness of permafrost at Destruction

Table 5.1 Descriptive Legend of Surficial Materials at Destruction Bay

Geomorphology; Nature of Materials Permafrost; Ground Ice; Miscellaneous Engineering Potential Terrain Type Slopes; Drainage and Thfckneso Active Layer Thicknes8 Characteristics Hazards

mEV Loess Veneer over mi undulating morafne; slope vary betveen 0 end 10 degrees; moderately well to well drained.

Between 0 and 1 m of sandy silt over 1 to 10 P of compact silty aandy till over interbedded clay, sand, gravel and till.

Continuous permafrost with active layer of 0.5 t o 1.0 metres; ground ice content nil to fou except medium to high occasionally in loess.

Stable foundation material; 8U8Ce tible to frost heave if ,Yrozen,

mEV fkn

Loess veneer over undulating drift;

0 and 10 degrees; dopes vary between

moderately well drefned.

Outuaeh veneer over undulating drift; rlopes vary between 0 and IO degrees; moderately well drained.

f / aGp Outwash plain; flat t o gently sloping; variable drainage - good to imperfect.

Floodplain includ- in braided channel'; wefl drained.

Alluvial fan; very

few small ecarps; well drained.

ently slopihg with

f laAf Alluvial fan; very

f e w sKallow Xannelr; entl rlopi with

drainage variable from imperfect to moderately well.

Between 0 and 1 of sandy r i l e over rilty sand till or lacio- fluvial grave! a d sand.

Between 0 and 2 m of gravel or ebbly sand over 1 to PO m of compact silty sandy till.

Between 0 and 1 of silt and s i l t y sand over 2 m plus of sand and gravel.

Thick gravel and sand.

Thick gravel and sand.

Between 0.5 and 2 m of silt and fine sand. frequently

an! sand. or anic, over gravel

Continuous permafrost with active layer of 0.5 to 1.0 metres; ground ice content nil to IOU except medim to high occasionally in loess.

Contirmous permafrost with active layer of 0.5 to 1.0 metres; ground ice content nil to low.

uith active layer of Continuous pernafroet

0.3 to 1.0 metres; ground ice content generally low to medium.

Generally unfrozen.

Probably contains isolated patches of permafrosi with negligible ground ice contents; active layer of 0.7 to 1.5 actres.

Stable foundation material; till susceptible to frost heave if unfrozen.

Stable foundatfon material; till susceptible to frost heave if unfrozen.

Stable foundation material except where high ground ice contents preeent.

Stable foundation material,

Stable foundation materfal.

Risk of flooding.

High risk of stream avulston

Permafrost with many Thawed fines poor tolfks due to aurface foundation material. and groundwater flou; round ice content8 requently = d i m to

hi h in finer ; l o w to nil in ravel and sand; active fayer 0.5 to 1.5 m

f

plus .

R i s k of flooding and stream avulsion.

Table 5.1 Descriptive Legend of Surficial Haterials at Destruction Bay (cont'd)

xAf

f A f

aLb Zm

Alluvial fan; very entl slopin with few J a l ~ m r cEanaalr;

aoderately well to drainage generally

channela poorly imperfect, but

drained.

AlLwial fan; very

P Fatly sloping v i t h ev rbllow channel^;

drainage generally modaratelp'well to imperfect; channels poorly drafaed.

Alluvial fan capped with peat veneer;

ently rlopfng :;x f chenmla; dreinage werfect.

e~ sba110~

Alluvfal blanket , w a r ouhrash; flat to ently sloping;'

well; f e w areas drafna e Poderatcly

imperfectly drained.

Alluvid fan capped wttb lacuserime clay; flat to very mtl doping; % , a er ect to moder-

ately well drained.

Allwfal fan blanketed by lacuatrinc aand and avcl gently slop&. but few

moderately well to well drained.

Undulating moraine blanketed by lacustrine sand and gravel; slopes vary up to 5 degrees; well drained.

amall ridges;

Between 5 to LO m plus of interbedded

with peaty layers. rilt, s a d , gravel

Between 5 and LO m plus of clayey silt, Bilt. ailty nand with feu gravel and peat layers.

Between 0.5 and 1.5 I of peat over clayey

vith few graveL and silt, silt, riity Band

peat layerr.

Between 0.5 and 2.5 m of clayey silt, eilt, ~ i l t y rand over gravel and Band.

Between 0.3 and 1.0 m of clay and allty clay with eat layers over intcrgcdded gravel sand and 8ilt.

Between 0 .5 and 2.0 m of gravel and sand over faterbedded gravel. nand and silt.

of gravel and a8nd Betueen 0.5 and 2 . h

over compact siLty sandy till.

Pcrpafrort with many Thawed fines poor Risk of atream taliks due to aurfate foundatfon msterial. and grounduater flow;

avulsion.

frequently medim to round ice contentn

hi h in fines; low to nt& lo ravel and nand; rctive Payer 0.5 to 1.5 m p lu..

Permsfsoat with many Thawed f ines poor Risk of stream talikr due t o rurface and groundwater flow;

foundatlon material. avulmion.

round ice content.

high; active layer 0.3 reqwntly medium t o

to 1.0 m.

f

Continuour pe-frort wtth rome subsurfscc

Thaued peat and fines

talikr due to ground- poor foundation material.

mater flow; ground ice

medium t o high; active contentr frequently

layers 0.2 to 0 . 7 metres.

Continuour.permafrort; Thawed fines poor ground ice content Erequently medium t o

foundation aaterial.

high i n finer; low in ravel and 8and; &ctfve f 6yS2r6 0.3 to 1.0 P.

Peraafrort general1

talikr and rhallav; ground ice content8 generally Low to ardilsll sativa hyer 0.5 to 1.0 m

COIIt&MIoUE. but W i t K

plus.

Permafrost with many taliks; ground ice enerally l w to n f l

fn sand and gravel;

high in finer; active frequently medim to

layer 0.5 to 1.5 m plus.

material, except where Stable foundation Some risk of

6 tream ercearive thicknesn of avulsion. f Inen prerent .

Stable foundation Some risk of material except where stream excessive thickness of a w l s Lon. frozen fines present.

Permafrost continuous, Stable foundation material. but probably relatively thin; round ice ron- tents K active layer 0.5 to 1.5 m

ow to nil;

plus.

m m

Table 5.1

XLP

aLr

"= Descriptive Legend of

R m =

Survidial Materials at

= = = =

Destruction Bay (cont'd)

Lacustrine plain; Interbedded clay, flat to very gently silt, sand and sloping; imperfect gravel ; probably to poor drainage. exceedfng 1 p1 in

thickness.

Beach ridgea; well One metre plus of drained. 7 ravel and sand individual beach

rid cs indicated ao

o .S m t d a d are rymtola only be

underlain by a variety of materials)

Unfrozen .

Generally

Fines poor foundation material.

Li uefaction an% flooding

unfrozen. Good foundation materials Ridges a t generally present. lake level

subject t o flooding and wave erosion.

0

n e 8

s P

0

t

w

t3 W

55

A

W >

o

at

$

3

c

2

0 I

t w

840

E30

56

8 '

140

850

820

810

BOO

7 9 0

' T I 0

770

, 760

t T'o 740 I ' 740

LEGEND

PEAT

m[ SILT

SAND TILL AND OUTWASH

GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION DESTRUCTION BAY

( See Map 5.5 . I for location.)

57

Bay is unknown, but Foothills Pipe Lines (South Yukon) Ltd . has drilled many holes to depths between 10 and 15 metres that have failed to reach the base of permafrost in the vicinity of Destruction Bay.

Destruction Bay is within 10 km of a line of features indicating recent fault activity about 10,000 years ago and tends to be affected by earthquakes due to its proximity to this fault and a zone of high seismic activity in the St. Elias Mountains to the south. A slight r i s k of a large block detaching itself from the glacially oversteepened face of the Kluane Ranges and moving across the valley to cover Destruction Bay is also present. However, this hazard is probably negligible as the l a s t landslide in this area appears to be of great antiquity, and no signs of imminent slope instability is present along the mountain front.

5.2 Terrain Types and Their Characteristics

Map 5.1 and figures5.5.la,b shows the distribution of terrain types at Destruction Bay. The geomorphology, slope distribution, drainage, nature and thickness of materials, permafrost distribution, ground ice contents, active layer thicknesses, ground stability, engineering characteristics and potential hazards for each mapped terrain type are given in Table 5 . 2 . Detailed grain size analysis for typical surficial materials are given in Appendix B.

5.3 Suitability Maps

Suitability maps for road construction, building construction and underground utility installation, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, septic systems and construction materials including granular materials are presented (Maps 5.3.1 - 5.3.5). These suitability maps are derived following the techniques outlined in Section 3.3 of this report.

5.3.1

58

Suitability f o r Road Construction

The suitability map f o r road construction (Map 5.3.1) assumes that roads .for year-round use are to be constructed and maintained on undisturbed terrain. For the purposes of drainage it is assumed the roads are graded, and ditches are present where required. The subgrade is to consist of materials underlying the roadway and the base material is to be locally obtained where possible. No provision is made on the suitability map for the source of surfacing material, which is assumed to be stabilized crushed gravel, till or rock.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect the initial construction and how they affect load capacities and maintenance. Slope , drainage, permafrost, bedrock depth, and material primarily affect initial conatruction, whereas flood hazard, ice contents, and miscellaneous hazards primarily affect mzintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for highway and road construction and maintenance are defined in Table 5.3.1.

5.3.2 Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation

The suitability map for building construction and utility installation (Map 5.3.2)assume that buildings are to have basements and utilities are buried in the ground. It is assumed that standard construction procedures are used except that special insulative proccdures'are used in areas of permafrost. It is also assumed that ground conditions are such that some mobility is viable in the vicinity of the buildings, and that utility and ground surface maintenance is minimal.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and how they affect the continued stability and maintenance of the building, building

59

Table 5 . 3 . 1 Terrain Property Cuidelincs €or Assesmine Suicabl l l ty for Iliehways and Road8

Different scatem of individual tarrain €actors are aseablished that allow the s u i t a b i l i t y of the undisturbed

alphal t surface). terrain type t o ba avaluated for construecion and maintenanca o f all-weather highway and roads (without

Degree o f Terrain Suicabili ty

Terrain Factor (symbol) Good - G Fairly Good - FG Fair (Marginal) - F Poor - P Unsuiciblc - U

(very poor)

Pemfrort andz i c a content8 (Pf)

Hazards due to3 moa wastage. fau l t act iv i cv , glacier advance. I C E . (hz)

Leal then 5 degrees

Less chan 8 degreoa Less than 12 degrees

Rapid to -11: Well t o moderately Nodetacely wall to renter than w e l l ; greater rhan fmperfect; water table

No flooding Very rare: rubject Occaaional; rubject

f m to wacer 0.75 m to water t a b l e enaral ly 0.50 cable EO 0.79 m

or loma t o onco i n 100 year. t o once in 10 t o 100

years

No permafrom Scattrred e ~ f r o s c Permafrooc generally but generafly no grwnd i e a

preoent. buc onry rare area4 havlng shallow (CO.5 m) redinent w i t h medium t o high IC. contenra

No haurdo No hararda Slow ne4r rutface aoil creep; isolacrd

of fault in within cock f a l l ; evidence

laat 10,008 year*

Creater chan 2 m Crmatar than 1.0 m and 1.0 rn Between 0 . 5 m

Crave1 and rand. Clay87 t i l l . r i k y Clayey silt. sandy sandy till; sand. s i l t y gravel; stonon Lerm than stones leas ehan 10

silt: scones lesa

5 percent percent than 25 pcrcanr

Slopeo between 12 and 16 degraea

warm* roble Less fmperfrct t o poor;

than 0 . 5 m

Annul flooding

P ~ m a f t o o t with up to t m of near-

having madium to surface sediment

high i c e contrnta; isolaced sediment of depth wich high ico conerne4

Sl ighc chance o f

or a.Uimm~t l i q u o - glacier readvance

faccion; pomaibtl- i c y of fau l t - induced surface rupture wichin noxt 100 years; rock fall* camon

teas than 0.5 rn

Clay, organic silt, peat up FO 2 R t h i c k ; atones 25 to 50 parcenc

t r e a t e r than lb degrees

Poor, water t n b h concinwurLy neat- surface

Flooding more than once a year

wirh redimento hov- Cantinuoum pemafroat

ing high ground ice

greacer than 1 m conctnts 50 depths

Poss ib i t fcy o f land-

next 100 years; l iquificacion within

rapid aol i f luct ion. nivatton or rurfncr

s l ide . sediment *

Creep

1. For drainaga chrracttrization Canada Soil Enformrtion System (Canada Soi l Survey Conmittem, 197b) .

2 . Ica contanct given in por cant volume exceso i c e : low (-10%; medium 10-20X; high )20%.

3. I l rarda such a4 flooding and f r l l u t r r due t o mn-induced chauing of petm*frort are conafdered in Flood Hazard (fl) and

4. Due t o f roet heaving, terrain uaitr having significant contenem of s i l t and clay in ateao of q e r f e c t and poor dralna e

Pemafrost and ice contanrs ( p f ) .

by asp lu l t t he au f t ab i l i t p rhould be mora revmzely altered. shouLd bm a l t e red t o one le10 degree o f s u i t a b i l i t y i f material i a che limiting factor ; w&ra tho highw.y ir t o be &aced

5. Stones o m d o f i n d 44 chrta having A dfamoter greetas than 6 cm. i . e . , cobblea. cearse tubblm, bouldrrs, bbck..

60

Table 5.3.2 Terrain Property Guideliner f o t Aaaemaing SUitabiLity for Building Conrtruction and U t i l i t y L n r t a l l ~ c i o n

Different r ta ter o f individual terrain factors a t e ertrblishtd that al low the su i robi l i ty o f tho undirturbed terrain type EO be evaluared for conmtruoeion or i n s t a l l a t i o n and maintenance of building$ ana unaergrouno u t i l i t i e r .

Degree o f Tetrain Sui tab i l i ty

Terrain Factor Unsuitable - U (ryrbol) Good - C Fairly CoOd - PC Fait (W.tgirUl) - F Paor - P (very poor)

Bedroc$ depth Always rea tor (br) than 2.5 m

Wo12 eo moderately Hoderarely Well CO -11 d r a i n d ; g r e a t e r than 1.5 merrea t o 3 erfmct drainage;

WtW table water table - 1.0 motre. t o

Non. Veq fare; rubject to once in 100 yearr or lea4

SCAtt8S.d emufroat Permafrost gmerallp bur goner& no premnt. but on1 tare grmmd ice 4fekm having r h a ~ l o w

((1.0 metrer) rrdi- mmt with medirrm t o high i ce concCnt*

No hazard#

WK4ti.l Gravel and r a d s Clayey till; clayey Thick r i l t y rand, comporitlon and randy till; r l l t and r i l t y rilt, r i l t y c l a , rtoninorr reonor lero rand leos char8 1 m Iton.# 1s t o 2 4 ( m t 1 chmn 52

ChAn 15% thick; #toner lerr

Slope. betwean 1 2 m d 20 degroer

Imperfectly or poorly drained ; < . S m eo vecet tabla

Occrrrional: rubjcct to mce

years i n 10 to 100

Ptrmafrorr wi th up to 1 marre o f near-surface sedi- nent having medium t o high ica con- t a n t r ; irolacnd redirmrnt ac depth w i t h high ice content.

Slighc chance of glac ie r advance or redimenc li UO-

pterent; evidence fact ion; tack 7.11

o f frulcing within l a a t LO.OOO yeara

Lerr than 1 meere

Creacar than 20 degreer

Poor drainage: water table continu- OU#ly ILUr 8UXf.c.

Annul flooding

wi th s e d h r n t r hAV- Cor~t inuau~ pemfrorc

in& high ground i ce

greater than 1 n r t r e concent8 eo depth8

Porr ib l l i ty of land- S l i d * $ , faULt- induced surface rupture. 3adir*4

glacier advance l iquefaction or

within next LOO year$; rapid aol i -

or roil. creep f luc t ion , n iva t ioa

GenetaUy at rurface

Thick Clay; Organic. grratrr organicr to 2 m than 50%; stones i n depth. rronea grr&te+ chan 50% 2s to SO%

61

site and utility. S l o p e , permafrost, bedrock depth, material composition and stoniness primarily affect construction and excavation whereas drainage, flood hazard, ice contents, and hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, faulting, liquefaction primarily affect stability and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines f o r assessing suitability for building construction and utility installation are defined in Table 5 . 3 . 2 .

5.3.3 Suitability and Optimum Locations for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills

The suitability map f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills assumes that the sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are to be constructed through shallow excavations or through the construction of berms on the undisturbed ground surface. The prevention of pollution through the movement of surface or ground water to terrain surrounding the facilities was considered to be of prime importance in their location. Minimal maintenance of berms and other confinements to the move-

ment of pollutants was also considered paramount.

The guidelines for sanitary landfills are generally less severe than f o r sewage lagoons as no fluid pollutants are initially introduced. Thus the suitability maps give a more conservative evaluation of terrain f o r use of sanitary landfills than sewage lagoons; in many cases the suitability classification f o r sanitary landfills can be adjusted to the next higher suitability classification to that which is shown on the suitability maps for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and berm emplacement and how they affect continued berm stability and prevention of pollution. Slope , f lood hazard, permafrost, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advance, faulting, liquefaction, bedrock

62

depth and material composition were considered primarily f o r their influence on pollutant confinement.

Locations where grain s ize analysis have been completed are plotted on Map5.3 .3 and show the basis on which the material compositions and permeabilities have been related, Grain size distributions for typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on Map5.3.3.are shown in Appendix B -

In addition t o drainage and material stoniness, many of the above terrain factors would also affect lagoon and landfill construction and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are defined in Table 5.3.3

Areas containing possible optimum locations for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are contained within those areas classified as FAIR on the suitability map.

63

Table 5.3.3 terrain Property Guideliner for Aasesring Sui tab i l i ty for Sawagm Lagoons and Sanitary Landfillr

Diffmrmnt stater o f individual ccrrain factora arm escablirhrd chat allow chc suitability o f chc undisturbed errrain rppr to fmpound water, swage, and leaehaer t o t m evaluatmd.

D8gt.8 Of Tarrain Suitabilfcy

Terrain Factor (aFbol ) Good - C P ~ i ? l y h o d - FG Fair (Marginal) - f Poor - P (very poor)

Unsuieabla - U

t h ftoodfng

No p m f r o m t

No ha2arda No hazard8

Graacmr than 1 . 5 Graatrr than 1.0 mecrar (b1ank.c) matrms (blankat)

Silty clay: Laas Clavw rfLt and chan 3 percone sile; claymy till stones and c w a c c till;

3 GO 10 percmnc stonma

w4r.i tab10 generally 1mpp.tfectly drained:

0.5 to 1.0 m

U t a ; subject co onca in 50 yearn EO LOO yaara

Prmafrorc gmnatally prmame.. but only rare ara.8 having r h a l h w (40.5 m) srdlmmtr with omdium t o high ico concmncr

Slow near rurkcr r o i l cramp

rnetrms (vlmamr) Cecue8n 0 .5 and 1.0

S f l c vich mama organic concant; randy or ravel ly r i l c or clay: 00s. till: LO-25 per I

cent aconra

term than 15 dmgreer

Poorly dtainmd; wacm tabla

than 0.5 a

Occarlonol:

in 5 co 50 years subject t o oncm

Pemafroar with up t o 1 m of mar- surface amdimane having madium to high ice coneenea

gan8?Ally h S *

Slight ChmICE O f glacier advance: ovfdanco o f faulc- ing wirhin lorc LO, 000 yearm ; some rock fall

metrea (vaneer) t o r r 'tan 0 .5

S i l t y rand and s i l t y gtaval;

cane scone le r r 25-50 par

Creaear than 15 di.gr88J

Parmanantly wee; vbf8r table con- tinuously ncar surfacm

Fraquent; 8ubfecC ro ac 1eo.c once 4 p R r

Continuous PC--

m8ncr having high frost vich nodi-

ground ica content#

thbn 7 m to de chr grmacer

Zapid Soil Cr.8Q

v a i l ; po$mibiliCy O f OF soliflucclon pre-

lmdrl id*, fault induced rurfaca rupeura. sodimme l iqulf icat ion, or lacier odvbace W i K h - n nlxc 100 yaars

Generally ac surfaer

&reetar than 50 Sand and grnval;

parcmc stonrs

f

p*AC

64

5 . 3 . 4 Suitability €or S e p t i c Systems

The suitability map f o r septic systems (Map 5.3 .4) assumes that the effluent from a septic tank is to be distributed in the natural surficial material by means of a sub-surface or raised tile. It was assumed that it would be required that water bodies and water supplies within 60 metresand surface water are not to be polluted by the septic system. It is also assumed that the systems are to be emplaced by standard procedures and that ground surface maintenance following emplacement is to be minimal.

The permeability of surficial materials with a terrain type was considered extremely important in evaluating terrain types f o r septic field suitability because the absorption of effluent without the pollution of water supplies or water bodies greater than 60 metresfrom the septic field is of prime importance. Grain size distributions f o r typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on Map 5.3 .': are shown in Appendix B.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect i n i t i a l sewage systems emplacement and maintenance and how they affect absorbtion of effluent and pollution prevention. The material composition, mainly i t s permeability, was cansidered of prime importance in evaluating terrain types f o r septic field suitability. Other terrain factors such as slope, drainage, permafrost, flood hazards, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, liquefaction and faulting, and bedrock depth primarily affect the continued prevention of pollutton of adjacent surface water, water bodies and water supplies; and to a lesser degree the emplacement and maintenance of the septic systems. The terrain property guidelines f o r assessing suitability for septic systems are defined in Table 5 . 3 . 4 .

6 5

Table 5.3.4 Terrain Prupqrty Cuidelinma for Aaaeaaing Suitability for SspClc Syatcma

Diffrrmc rrrtrr of IndiviCrul tetrain factma are oaeablirhed that allow the su i tab i l i ty of rhm undtrcurbed terrain type to be wa1uat.d f o r conrrruceion and mainrennnce of sept ic ryatama.

Minor aoil croop

Badtoek dapch (bt )

Gtaacrr than 1.5 m

1 to 1.5 m 0 . 5 ro 1 m

Bccveen 8 and 15 drgrear

Imperfectly t o poorly drained; aruonrl surface water panding e€

Ocuaional; rubjoet eo oncm in 5 ymara or

Parnufroac pterrar with tar* area. having ahallow

with medium co ( 0.5 m) aadimant

high i c e concenca

S a m rock fa l l ; slight chance of glacfar advance; avidenen o f t au l t - ing within Laac 10,000 9rara

188.

Greater chm 15 dagreea

Poorly drainrd; surfacr ponding comon

Annu~l flooding

Continuoua parma-

areaa having shallow frorc wich many

eo high ground i C m sedimonc wich medium

contmer

Ra id soil creep.

nivarioa; active r o ' h u c r i o n and

landslide activtcy ac s i re or on adjacmnc alopr: p o r s i b i i i t y of

n u t 100 y*.rr f iquifaecioa vicbia lne is r advanem or

Garrerally lesa cham 0 . 5 m

Cravei, clay. s i l t ,

grcarar rhan SO stone cancenc

percenc; p u t

66

5.3.5 Suitability and Availability of Construction Materials

The suitability map (Map 5.3.5) assumes that the construction materials are to be used as aggregate or fill. The suitability of the different terrain types are evaluated according to the quality and quantity of the surficial materials within it, and the workability and ease of extraction of those materials. Materials that are required to be impermeable such as dikes are excluded from consideration; the suitability f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills give a partial assessment of suitability far impermeable materials. The suitability of bedrock as a construction material has not been evaluated. Terrain types containing gravel and sand with potential as aggregate are given the highest suitability classification a3 they can easily be adapted to most construction purposes. Other terrain types are evaluated on the basis of the compressibility, compactibility, susceptibility to frost action and surface trafficability of the surficial materials within them.

. ." , .. . . .

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis how they affect the usefulness and versatility of the contained materials as a construction material, the ease ox difficulty of extraction, and the volumes that could be extracted from a unit area. Material composition and stonineas primarily affects usefulness as a construction material, whereas slope, drainage, perma- f ros t , f lood hazard, miscellaneous hazards, and bedrock depth affect the extractable volumes per unit area and the ease or difficulty of extraction. The terrain property guidelines are defined in Table 5.3.5.

A number of sources of aggregate have been outlined on map 5.3.5. The grave1:sand:fines ratios (based on grain size distribution obtained during this and earlier investigations), and the cu. metres per hectare of deposits (based on our estimate of minimal extraction thicknesses) are indicated for each source.

67

Table 5 .3 ,s Terrain Property Guidelines for Amsearing Sui tab i l i ty for Construction Harorialr Including Workability and U#efulner$ *I General Fill hnd Sourccm o f Gravel and Sand

Different s t a t e s of individual terrain factors are established that a l l w the su i t ab i l i t y a f the undisturbed terrbin type t o be evaluated am a potential aource of construction materials, including sand and gravel.

Degree of Terra in Sui tab i l i ty

Tarrbin Factor (s-1) Good - G Fair ly Good - FG Pair (Hmzgirul) - F Poor - P (very poor)

Unruirabh - U

Hatatdn due t o 4 run11 wartage,

glac ie r advance, f a u l t a c t i v i t y ,

CCC. (hz)

Bedrock depth (br)

Material compositi n and a twines. s (mr)

Leal than Bemean 5 and 12 5 dcpreer degraem

Rapid t o well; Wall t o amdarately wafer cable >2 m

well; -tor table 1.0 t o 2 m

Noa.

None

V a v rare: rubjece once in 100 yeera or l ea l

Sc8tter.d pormafrort v i rh low ground ice c ~ n c n r o

No hazards Flow mar-eurface soil creep

Crrater than 2 m Batween 1.5 and 2 m

Gravel and sand; Silty rand. S i l t r tonas lerr than 3 p8rERnt thin cover (venear)

gravel. sandy till; w o r rand or gravel; stoner le$$ than 10 percent

Betwaen 12 and 20 degreas

Imperfect to moderatcly

t o 1.0 m

Occarional t o tare; rub ect ta once i n 5

"well; water t ab le 0.9

t o io0 J8.+8

Pcmmfrost generally present. but on1 r8re araar having rhaflou ( e 0 . 5 m) sediment wiKh medium to high i c e contents

Upid mil creap of m l i i l u e t i o n : evidence of faul t ing virhin

chance of g lac ie r advance

Greater than 1 .O m (blanker)

T i l l , s i l t y f i n e rand; stoner le$* than 25 perctnt

1 A S C 10,000 yea?$;

Between 20 aad 30 degr8.8

poor; waeer hpmrfecr t o

0 . 5 ID cable lorn than

Frqucnt ; sublect to annubl flood

Permafrost with up to I. o f near-surface rediment having medium EO high ice contents

Pooaibility of

rupture a? redi- landslide, rurface

ment l iqu i f ica- t ion within next 100 years

Berwccn 0.5 and 1 .O m (veneer)

S i l t , clay. clayey r i l e , thick cover (blanket) over sand and gravel; 25 t o SO parcanr atonma

Greater than 30 degrees

watar cable Permanently w e t ;

surface

V8ty frequent; floodtd more than onca per year

with sedimenta hav- Concinuoua p e m a f r o a t

ing high ground fca concents to daptha greater than 1

m i a a n t po#mibility of landalddr and sediment l iquif ica- t ion

teas than 0.5 m

Peat, organic J i l t * ; greater than 50 percenc $tOnLl

3 . Water table4 are conaidered only whero pcmufromt ir abrenc as a porched vater thble I$ generally preaenr where pamafrost i 4 prement. However, only A 1init.d 4nd u m l l y control1.d awunt o f wafar would be introduced from mose urcavations from t h t r perehad watar tabla.

P m f r o s c .ad i ce contartca (pf). 0 . Ha88rd$ such a. flooding and fa i lu teo due to mn-intktcad thawing o f perufromr are considered in Flood Hazard (€1) and

5 . Stonea W e defined c h $ t a having a diamstor greater tlun 6 m, ;.e., cobbler, coarse rubble , ba lder r . block..

68

The area in which 73PY is located on map 5.3.5 probably contains the largest source of near-surface gravel and sand closest to Destruction Bay; although much of this area may be limited by aledivan depths of overburden, imperfect drainage and flood hazard, further investigations would certainly establish easily extractable reserves of gravel and sand that total beyond the foreseeable requirements of Destruction Bay.

Patches of gravel and sand are present on the surface of most units east of Destruction Bay along. the Alaska Highway, and gravel and sand are generally present under the till forming the surface. However, these sources involve either dis- turbing large areas or costly stripping of overburden. Gravel and sand is also counnon along the scarps along the edge of Kluane Lake northwest of Destruction Bay, but again are covered by thick overburden. Large volumes of gravel are present in alluvial-fans east of the Destruction Bay study area. However, this would involve large haul distances and extra cost.

T i l l f o r fill and road binding purposes i s available immediately east of Destruction Bay in all areas marked as F - pf, mt on map 5.3.5.

5.3.6 Recreation and Cottage Areas

Some areas of excellent potential for recreation and cottage development are present within the Destruction Bay study area. These areas allow for increased access, foot and vehicle travel and cottages with some type of sewage disposal, preferably a septic system.

Map 5.3.2, which gives the suitability f o r building construction and utility installation, and map 5 . 3 . 4 , which gives the suitability for septic systems, are a guide to areas most suitable f o r recreational and cottage development. The areas

69

southeast of Destruction Bay and north of the Alaska Highway that are mapped as FG - pf, mt and F - pf on map 5.3.2 and as F - pf and P - p f , m t on map 5.3.4 appear to be best suited f o r recreation and cottage development. That area mapped as FG - pf, mt on map 5.3.2 having a gradual slope to lake levels appears to be extremely favourable

5.4 Unique Features

Few particular and unique features are present: at Destruction Bay. At (l), ( 2 ) , and (3) on map 5.5.1 features are present that relate to the high Neoglacial lake level of Kluane Lake. At (1) some indistinct sands and gravel raised beach ridges are present; at (2) submerged tree stumps axe visible in the lake; and a t (3) fine-grained Meoglacial lake sediments bury a soil layer overlying alluvium. With the exception of unique feature (3) a11 are better illustrated at other si tes around Kluane Lake.

5.5 Hydrageolgy

The hydrogeology of Destruction Bay is described under the headings of well survey, water quality, groundwater flow regime and water supply potential.

5 . 5 . 1 Well Survey

A well survey of the community of Destruction Bay identified 6 wells that are presently in use and include a communal well which services the village core; and an additional 8 wells which are not operative at present. These wells are located on Map 5.5.1 and the available hydrogeological information about them is summarized on Table 5.5.1 of this report. Well depths vary significantly from 15-20 m deep to 161 m. All wells are d r i l l e d and no dug wells or surface water sources are used for water supply in the community.

Table 5.5.1 Hydrogeological Data, Destruction 3ay

S t a t i c Well No. Description Depth Leve 1 - Use Yield

D38 (1963) Talbot Arms Hotel 20.7 m f lowing ho te l suf f ic ien t -not i n use f o r l a r g e

lodge

DB1 (1973) Talbot Arms Hotel 87 rn ( 5 m h o t e l s u f f i c i e n t for l a r g e h o t e l and res t au ran t

DB2 (1955) Destruction Bay 28 m flowing abandoned used f o r Lodge Ltd small lodge

D33

D B 1 4

Dl38

DB6

DB9

Yukon Terr i tor ia l shal low near yard uses low volume Government yard esti- surface

mated 15 t o 20 m

Boat r e n t a l bui lding

56 rn f!'Lowing n o t i n u s e unknown

Dept, of Publ ic unknown 2 . 3 m n o t i n use unknown Works

Yukon E l e c t r i c 75 m < 5m domestfc very low (Eikland yield, household) 1200 1

storage tank used

Canadian National 30 rn c lose to n o t i n use unknown Telecommunications surface

Log no log, water highly corro- s i v e

no log , s o f t water

no l og

no log

cont inual ly froze shut a t 30 m depth

no log

no log , w e l l runs out of water on occasion

no log

m = m U = U R

Table 5 * 5.1 (cont 'd)

Well No.

DBlU, 11

DB12 (1940 * s)

DB13 (1940 ' s) DB 5

DB4

Descrfption

Test wells in new subdivision east of Destruction Bay

Community Wells

# 1

Parks Canada Residence

Tlep th

no data

30 m

24 m

161 m

88 m

Static Level

not flowing

unknown

unknown

near surface

2.7 m

Use Yield

domestic no data use available intended

-

vil lage 45 llmin water supply

as above not known

village water SUPPlY

domestic 180 l/min residence

Log completed by Midnight Sun Drilling Ltd.

silt problem

silt problem

see text

72

Three of the sampled wells (30m, 24m and 161 metres deep), which are adjacent to the lake, presently furnish the communal groundwater supply f o r the village. The deep well is the only one in the village with a stratigraphic log (Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1978). Other data was obtained from local residents and Parks Canada and Department of Transport f i l e s .

5.5.2 Water Quality

The water chemistry of the 6 wells sampled in Destruction Bay is outlined as Table 5.5.2~~. An analysis of raw Kluane Lake water was included to examine the possibility of recharge of wells from the lake,

Bicarbonate is the major anion in the wells at Destruction Bay lodge, at the Yukon Territorial Government yard and at the Parks Canada residence. These wells all have very hsrd water although the first two are a bicarbonate (minor sulphate) - magnesium (minor calcium) type and the las t is a bicarbonate (minor sulphate) - calcium (minor magnesium) type. These wells have a low chloride content, a characteristic which is t y p i c a l of the region. The concentrations of 3 7 3 , 1 , 321.8 and 244.5 ppm t o t a l dissolved solids and variations in minor and trace element chemistry show that different aquifers are being utilized in each case

The Talbot Arms Hotel, Town Water Supply and Yukon Electric wells are all sulphate (minor bicarbonate) - alkali earth cation waters. Sodium predominates in the f i r s t , magnesium in the second and equal amounts of each cation are found in the third.

There is no geochemical evidence to suggest that any well i s recharging from Kluane Lake waters which is a slightly mineralized sulphate (minor bicarbonate) - calcium (minor magnesium) type 1 ,

" = = m

Table 5.5.2a WATER CHEMISTRY DATA (Destruction Bay)

( i n mgfl unless indicated) mg/& Surface Water

Talbot Arms Hotel

Destruct ion Bay Lodge

Yukon T. Government Yard

Parks Canada Residence

T o m Water SUPP1Y

Yukon Electric (Eikland Home)

Kluane Lake (waterfront)

Lewis Creek

Congden Creek

109

374

231

238

150

a7

86

75

281

560

820

660

520

600

580

380

260

660

25 36.2 3 7 . 5 1.75 -

4 3 . 7 91 15 3.1 . 2

42.8 53 22.5 2.37 .1

65 20 4.25 .6 . 05

2 2 . 5 50 22.5 2 . 5 .1

22.3 37.5 37.5 1 . 5 .l

2 7 . 5 16.3 4.25 -25 - 0 5

20.0 7 .5 1 . 7 5 1 . 1 2 .05

62.5 35.0 5.5 1 . 0 .8

3.0

-

.44

1.5

1.72

1.86

-

I13

-

N . D 184

3 . 5 115

- 142

- 41

3 . 5 162

207

91

37

68

392

574

462

364

420

406

Lake Sample 266

Surface water 182

Surface water 462

210.9

373.1

321.8

2 4 i . 5

251.3

207 .O

135.5

80.7

299.8

very hard

very hard

very hard

very hard

very hard

very hard

hard

moderately so f t

very hard

74

I

I I I 1 I I I

All samples are considered to be chemically potable except the Yukon Territorial Government well which is very high in phosphate (2142 rng/ml). This well may be contaminated from the truck and equipment washing facilities which are in close proximity to the well. It is understood that the well only furnishes water f o r this purpose in any case and is not used f o r human consump t ion .

5 5.3 Groundwater Flow Regime

Existing test drilling results and groundwater flow information are summarized i n the following sections of this report. Two cross sections have been included to show the Stratigraphy of the Destruction Bay area based on available water- well and bore hole logs (Figures 5.5 .la, b) , The stratigraphy at depth beneath the village is shown on Table 5.5.2b(after Hydro- geological Consultants L t d , 1978) from data obtained during drilling of the community well in the village.

A) Test Drilling Results

A test well was drilled in 1978 to a 161 metre depth beside the existing communal wells at the village water front. It penetrated an 11.5 m (38 foot) thick alluvial fan complex. This unit overlies a 9.4 m (31 foot) glaciolacustrine s i l t / c lay stratum, a thick 92.9 sequence of cobbley, sandy and dense hard glacial till, another lacustrine unit 19.2 m thick and a 24.9 m cobbley till stratum. This entire geological section is under- la in by a brown silty unit of unknown origin and total thickness. Bedrock was not reached in this well.

Potential water bearing zones were identified at the 74.0 to 75.3 m, 4 4 . 8 to 4 6 . 3 rn and 3 3 . 2 t o 3 4 . 4 m depths in the well. NO major water bearing zones were found in any of the glaciolacustrine, alluvial or morainal terrain units described above, The 32.2 m to 3 4 . 4 m zone which might be interpreted as thin

I 1 I I a I I I I. I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1

7s

Table: 5.5.2b

Stratigraphy of Destruction Bay Community Well

(After Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1978)

Depth

0

30.5

61

Lithology

Gravel with some silt Clay T i l l ; so f t T i l l ; w i t h sand layers

T i l l ; hard

T i l l ; with one layer of coarse gravel

T i l l ; cobbled

122

S i l t ; black Clay; grey Silt; dark grey

Clay; hard grey silty

Clay; silty

152.5 T i l l ; cobbled

167

S i l t ; brown

To bottom of hole

Terrain Unit

xAf L

M

L

M

Unknown

76

glaciofluvial sand/gravel unit found within the major till sequence proved to be water bearing. A 94.5 litre/minute flow was blown from the well during development after installation of a well screen in this zone. The effective transmissivity of the aquifer is 6 x lo2 i p d l f t . B) Groundwater Flow Directions

Table 5.5.1 indicates the depths of aquifers which are being utilized in each well in Destruction Bay. A wide variation (627 to 779 m A.S.L.) is evident even between wells which are in very close proximity which suggeats that aquifers are thin and discontinuous laterally.

All wells have been drilled to a depth of at least 15 metres below the ground surface and are considered to be utilizing confined aquifers in the till and gravel units, which underlie much of the Destruction Bay area. No dug or d r i l l e d wells in the Alluvial Fan sequences have been constructed i n th is settlement. The potent ia l of this terrain unit to provide adequate quantities of good quality water should be reasonable, but freezing problems are a major constraint of wells in shallow unconfined aquifers however.

Surficial terrain units and probable groundwater flow directions are summarized on Figure 5 . 5 . 3 . Both the predominant regional and local groundwater flow directions are t o the northeast towards Kluane Lake. Unconfined permeable alluvial fan and glaciofluvial materials which are exposed at the surface, cover a large area of the region. These units generally overlie a thick low- permeability till sequence and recharge from surface precipita- t ion . The fact that three flowing wells axe present in the village suggest that deeper aquifers are recharging from higher elevation rock, colluvium and sloping alluvial fan units southwest of the study area, especially in the area where the Shakwak Trench

77

KLUAME

L RUE

ESTRUCTION

0 I t 4 Rm

I

LEGEN 0 POSSI~LE GROUNOWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS~

LOCAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE : . WHERE PERMAFROST MOT AT SURFACE REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW

PRINCIPAL RECHARGE AREA FOR NEAR SURFACE ( Local) DEJTRUCTION BAY WELLS GROUNDWATER FLOW ( High sensitivity to contorninatlon.)

FIGURE 5.5.3.

GROUNDWATER FLOW DESTRUCTION BAY

78

(the broad valley in which Kluane Lake lies) adjoins the Kluane Range. Probably some hydraulic connections are also present throughout glaciofluvial deposits and till sequence. The possibility exists that vertical movement of water from the surface is occuring through the surficial complex to generate these artesian pressures. This recharge source cannot be verified with existing data however, and is considered unlikely if till units are continuous because of the till observed where morainal units are exposed at the surface generally has low permeability. Permafrost in parts of the alluvial-fan complex would also inhibit local recharge where permafrost was present.

5.5.4 Water Supply Potential

The following conclusions can be made about the water supply potential of the Destruction Bay area.

A) Most geological materials buried at depth beneath Destruction Bay are of glaciolacustrine and morainal origin and are not waterbearing. The potential f o r the development of major aquifers as water supplies is very limited in these strata. For example, the aquifer developed during the drilling of communal well no. 3 is a t h in stratum of permeable sand and gravel, perhaps of glaciofluvial origin. The safe yield and transmissivity of this aquifer is low and the potential exists to service only 3 or 4 domestic residences from this one source. High turbidity problems are often associated with this type of aquifer.

B) High yields of potable water may be present in unconfined near-surface alluvial-fan and glaciofluvial sand/gravel deposits. However, freezing problems are likely to preclude use of these aquifers for future development. Due to the high permeability of t h i s type of terrain the contamination risk of shallow wells from any pollutant source (sewage, hydrocarbon spills, e t c . ) is high.

79

C) Future development in Destruction Bay will likely require the construction of well fields consisting of several 20 - 100 rn deep properly screened low volume wells supplying a communal distribution system.

80

6.0 BURWASH LANDING

6.1 Setting

Burwash Landing is located near the western end of Kluane Lake in the Shakwak Trench, which is the physiographic expression of a large fault system that transects both Alaska and Yukon Territory, and that has been active during the late Tertiary and Pleistocene. At Burwash Landing, the ground surface rises gradually from about 780 metres at Kluane Lake to about 1120 metres at the edge of the Shakwak Trench. Near Kluane Lake, the terrain is gently sloping or undulating except for some small scarps of 10-15 metres formed by wave erosion near Kluane Lake.

A t Burwash Landing, thick unconsolidated deposits are the result of deposition during several Pleistocene glac ia l and interglacial perieds, and include till, outwash, glaciolacustrine silt and clay, and alluvial silt, sand and gravel. Most of the surface materials shown on map 6.1, and figure 6.1 were deposited during or after the Macauley glaciation. During this glaciation a large trunk valley glacier flowed northwest along the Shakwak Trench. At Burwash Landing undulating and flat moraine (m, tMp) , outwash (aGp), and during its later phases, loess (mEv) were deposited during th is glaciation. Peat (Ob) has begun to accumulate in swales in morainic areas.

During the waning stages of the Macauley glaciation, Kluane Lake drained to the northwest, However, during the hypeithemal, the Kaskawulsh Glacier at the head of the Slims River retreated far up its valley and allowed Kluane Lake to drain to the Alsek River and to be lowered by over 40 metres. Rapid formation and aggradation of the alluvtal-fans flanking the Kluane Ranges that occurred following deglaciation of the Shakwak probably continued near Burwash Landing, as material was not being removed from the base of the alluvial-fans by the Kluane River.

81

During Neoglacial time, the Kaskawulsh Glacier re- advanced, blocked the drainage of Kluane Lake to the Alsek River, and caused Kluane Lake to rise to an elevation 10 to 12 metres above its present elevation. A new outlet (the present Kluane River) was re-established to the northwest and Kluane Lake quickly returned to near its present level. This new level of Kluane Lake probably caused some erosion on the Duke River alluvial- fan. Alluvium deposited by the Duke River is mainly gravel near Burwash Landing (gAf) .

The Neoglacial rise in the level of Kluane Lake has resulted in s m e areas below elevations of about 792 metres having a capping of wave-washed material (aLv, sLb). Modern wave action continues to modify beach ridges and beaches at lake level, Shoreline erosion appears to be moderate at Burwash Landing.

Burwash Landing lies in an area where permafrost is near continuous. Only those units, eg. alluvial-fans, that are frequented by surface streams or that lack a significant capping of fine-grained sediment and peat (gAf) are free of permafrost. Even those portions of alluvial-fans having permafrost at their surface often have taliks throughout their total thickness because of groundwater percolating through them to Kluane Lake. Kluane Lake itself may also cause the thickness of permafrost to be relatively thin near it. The total thickness of permafrost at Burwash Landing is unknown, but Foothills P i p e Lines (South Yukon) Ltd. has drilled many holes to depths between 10 and 15 metres that have failed to reach the base of permafrost in the vicinity of Burwash Landing.

Burwash Landing is within 10 km of a line of features indicating recent fault activity about 10,000 years ago and tends to be affected by earthquakes due to i t s proximity to this fault and a zone of high seismic activity in the St. Elias Mountains to the south.

e10 i 100 -I

A' FIGURE 6.1 .

GEOLOGICAL CROSS S€CTiON BURWASH LAND"

LEGEND

0-0 WELL

A LOCATED OM UAP6.1.1

83


Map 6.1 and figure 6.1 show the distribution of terrain types at Burwash Landing. The geomorphology, slope distribution, drainage, nature and thfckncss of materials, permafrost distribution, ground ice contents, active layer thicknesses, ground stability, engineering characteristics and potential hazards for each mapped terrain type are given in Table 6.1. Detailed gra in size analysis f o r typical surficial materials are given in Appendix B.

6.3 Suitability Maps

Suitability maps for road construction, building construction and underground utility installation, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, septic systems and construction materials including granular materials are presented (Maps 6.3.1 - 6.3.5) . These suitability maps are derived following the techniques outlined in Section 3.3 of this report.

6.3.1 Suitabilitv f o r Road Construction

The suitability map for road construction (Map 6.3.1) assumes that roads f o r year-round use are to be constructed and maintained on undisturbed terrain. For the purposes of drainage it is assumed the roads are graded, and ditches are present where required. The subgrade is to consist of materials underlying the roadway and the base material is to be locally obtained where poss ib le . No provision is made in the suitability map f o r the source of surfacing material, which is assumed to be stabilized crushed gravel, till or rock.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect the initial construction and how they affect load capacities and maintenance. Slope, drainage, permafrost,

Table: 6 . 1 Descriptive Legend of Sur f fc ia l Mater ia l s a t Burwash Landing

Geomorphology, Slopes, Nature of Materials Permafrost , Ground ice, Miscellaneous Engineering Terrain Type Drainage and Thfckness Active Layer Characteristics

rn E" Loess veneer over undulating moraine; slopes vary between 0 and 10

wel l t o well drained; low areas imperfect ly drained.

tMM degrees; moderately

t f l P

Loess veneer over morainic plain; slopes f l a t t o v e r y g e n t l e , moderately well t o w e l l drained.

Loess veneer over outwash and t i l l p la in ; s l o p e s f l a t t o v e r y gent le ; w e l l t o moder- a t e l y w e l l drained.

Organic blanket over undi f fe ren t ia ted undu- l a t i n g t o f l a t till and outwash; a l l slopes near ly f la t ; imperfec t to poor drainage.

Between 0 and 1 m of sandy s i l t over 1 t o 10 m of compact s i l t y sandy till over interbedded clay, sand, gravel and till.

Between 0 and 1 m of sandy s i l t over 1 to 10 rn of compact s i l t y sandy till over innter- bedded clay, sand, gravel and till.

Between 0 and 1 m of sandy silt over 10 metres plus of interbedded sand. gravel and till,

Between 0 . 5 and 2.5 m of peat and organic s i l t over 0.5 to I . O m of interbedded clay, s i l t , sand over t ill , sand and grave l .

Continuous permafrost with Stable foundation material; ac t ive l aye r of 0 . 3 t o suscept ible t o f r o s t heave 1.0 metres; ground ice i f unfrozen. content n i l t o low except occasionally medium to h igh i n l oes s .

Permafrost continuous, but Stable foundation material; may be re la t ive ly th in near suscept ib le to f ros t heave Kluane Lake; ground i c e i f unfrozen. c o n t e n t n i l t o low except occasionally medium t o high in loess ; ac t ive layer of 0 . 5 t o 1 .0 metres.

Permafrost continuous, but Stable foundation material; may be r e l a t i v e l y t h i n loess and till suscept ib le near Kluane Lake w i t h t o f r o s t heave i f unf rozen . ac t ive l ayer of 0.5 t o 1.0 metres; ground ice content n i l t o low except occa- s iona l ly medium t o high in loess .

Generally continuous perma- Thawed peat and f ines are f ros t , a l though some t a l i k s poor foundation material. possibly due Eo water movement ;- medium t o high i ce con ten t s i n pea t and fine-grained sediments; low i c e c o n t e n t s i n till and outwash; ac t ive l ayer 0.3 t o 0.7 metres.

Table : 6. 1 (cont 'dl

Alluvial fan; gently sloping; well drained.

Wave washed alluvial fan; gently sloping; well drained.

Lacustrine blanket over alluvial fan; flat to gently sloping; imperfectly drained.

Between 0 and 0.5 m of sand and silt over 5 m plus of gravel.

Between 0 and 1.0 m of loose sand and gravel over 5 m plus of gravel.

Between 0 . 5 and 1,5 m of silty sand over 5 m plus of gravel; patches of thin peat (<0.3 m) aver sand.

Discontinuous permafrost; Stable foundation material. active layer 0.6 to 1.2 metres plus; negligible ice contents.

Permafrost unlikely. Stable foundation material.

Thin patches of permafrost Thawed sand may be poor with medium ice contents foundation materials. in the sand.

86

Table 6.3.1 Terrain Propmrry Guidelinms €or Asraraing Suitabiliry €or Highways and Roads

Different sta tes o f individual retrain factors are catablfahed rhae allov the suirabil tey of the undiscurbd t e r r a in epp8 t o be ~ v a l u t e d f o r conseruccion and rnaincmnmcr o f all-uaachar highway and roada (wichauc asphalt rutfaca).

Degree o f Totrain Sui t rb i l i ry

Tarrain Factor (symbol) Good - C Fairly Good - FC T a r t (Marginal) - F POO? - P Unsuitable - U

(very poor)

Hazard. dua Eo3 mM.. vaarage.

glaclar advanem. fau l t act ivi ty ,

mtc. (hr)

Srdrack depth (br)

No p e m r o m e

Lena than 8 degrees

Wall t o moderatrlv umll; grmatat than 0.7s m t o water table

VarJI rare: r u b j e t eo once fn LOO ym-~ or Lema

Scattered mrP.froeC bus g m e t r ! l y no grarnd i c e

No hazard. No hazard.

Ftcater than 2 m Crareer chrn 1.0 rn

Cravel and sand, Claya7 till. silt sandv till; seonir 1.88 than scones lema than 10

rand. r l l t v grav.1:

5 percme patcmz

Lcra then 12 dagrecr

Moderataly well t o

eablr onerally 0.50 to 0 . A m

Occarioorul; SubjacK

yarrr EO once in LO t o LOO

Permafroat generally prrsmc. buc only rare area8 having shallow ( C O , 5 m) r edben t wieh mmdiw eo high ice coneancr

imp.rf.ct; water

Slow near surfaca tock t a l l ; evidence roi l creep: i s o h e r d

of faolrtn vt rh in 1a.c LO. 008 yeatm

Eatween 0.5 m md 1.0 m

Cl-pey r i l e , randy s i l t ; #eonea Lesa than 25 percent

Slope8 bmcwarn 12 and 16 degrmer

w c a f erbla 1e.r fmperface co poor;

than 0 . 5 m

Annual flooding

P e m f r o a e with up to 1 tu of nrar-

havinq medium to rurfaca sadimenc

high Lcm concmts; LaoLaead s e d h n c a t uepch with high ice contatlea

St ight chance of

o f swiimenc Liqw- placlsr raadvancm

€acslon; poraibi l - i t y o f eaulc-

rup cure v i chin inuucad surface

naxc 100 yeer r ; rock f r l l r c-n

Lea. chrn 0 .5 m

Clay, organic silt. ?cat up eo 2 o thick; scones 25 ea 50 petcmr

Creatar rhbn Lb dsgraas

Poor, wacer tabla coneinwurSy near- surface

rloodiry mu?. chdn once a year

with amdimants h w - Conrinuou. pamafroat

in6 high ground ics cancants co aaprhs greater than 1 m

Poraibilisy of landslide, aedimsnc <

naxc 100 yearr; liquificatron wichin

rapid rolifluction, nivarion or surface crmap

I - I I I R I

87

bedrock depth, and material primarily affect initial construction, whereas f lood hazard, ice contents, and miscellaneous hazards primarily affect maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability f o r highway and road construction and maintenance are defined in Table 6.3.1.

6.3.2 Suitability f o r Building Construction and Utility Installation

The suitability map for building construction and utility installation (Map 6.3.2) assume that buildings are to have basements and utilities are buried in the ground. It is assumed that standard construction procedures are used except that special insulative procedures are used in areas of permafrost. It is also assumed that ground conditions are such that some mobility is viable in the vicinity of the buildings, and that utility and ground surface maintenance is minimal.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and how they affect the continued stability and maintenance of the building, building site and utility. Slope , permafrost, bedrock depth, material composition and stoniness primarily affect construction and excavation whereas drainage, flood hazard, ice contents, and hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, faulting, liquefaction primarily affect stability and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability fo r building construction and utility installation are

6.3.3

defined in Table 6.3.2.

Suitability and Optimum Locations for Sewage Lag;oons and Sanitary Landfills

The suitability map for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills assumes that the sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are to be constructed through shallow excavations or through the construction of berms on the undisturbed ground

88

Table 6.3.2 Tettain Property Guidelinor for Aaaeaaing Suitabiliey for Building Construction and Utility Tngcallacion

Differme rt4tea o f individual terrain frccorr are eacabliahed that allow the ruitsbility of the undisturbed terrain type to be walureed tor conmrruotion or inrt~U~tion and mainccnance ot building# and undcrgrouno UcLAities.

Dogre. of Terrain Suitability Terrain Pactor (.ymbol) Cood - G Fairly Good - FG F4ir (Marginal) - F poor - P (vew poor)

Unuuitrble - U

; Well to modorately wll drained4 geearm

water tablo than 1.5 motreu t o

Mono

NO h4Z4rd8

Lema than 12 degreer

?3odoramly v d l t o imperfect drainage;

water table 0.5 - 1.0 metre* to Very rare: subject t o once i n 100 yeua or l e##

Pemofrore generally prerent. but only rare areal hhving rtirllow (q1.0 metrea) redi- m m f with nmdium to high ico cenemts

Slow near-aurface aoi l creep; within 1 bn of poat glacial Active fault

Sloptm betwean Greater than 20 1 2 m d 20 degrmas degreos

fmpetf eerly or poorly drhined: water table continu-

Poor drainage;

<. 5 m PO vaeet cable

ouuly n u r ourface

Occorrional; lubjcct to once

Annual flooding

yeatll in 10 eo 100

Pamafroat with Continuour pemafrort

naar-aurfoce redL- ing high ground ice up to 1 metre of vith sodimentr hav-

ment having medium contentr t o depchn t o high h a con- greator than 1 wcre tents; irolacod

with high ice eediment a t depth

contents

Slight chance o f Porribilicy o f land-

or sedimmnt li ue- induced surface

prcaent; evidence liquefrction or faction; rock ?dl rupture, sadirent

of faultin within glacier advanca lare 10,008 years vichin nexr LOO

glacier AdVAnC8 slides, fault-

yearr; rapid soli- fluctiaa, nivrtlon or roil cterp

tram than 1 metre Generally ac rurface

Thick cloy; Organicr grmcer orpmicr t o 2 m than S Q X ; rronea in dopth, rtonas greacor EhAa sox 25 t o 50%

89

Tabla6.3.3 Tarrain Property Guidrlinca for Araeaaing Sufeabili ty for Sewege bgoonr and Sanitary Landfills

Different a t a t e l o f individual certain faetora arm eaEAbliahed thar allow the sui tabi l i ty o f chm undirtutbed t e e a i n type t o fmpound w4caf. #.wag., and laachace to be wmluared.

Harard8 due fe m o s wart.#., fault activicv ghcier advmem, etc. (ha)

4

NO permrffort

No hazard4 No hazards

Rue: uubject t o oncm fa 50 y e u r t o LOO yearn

P d r o o t genmrally ~ramnt. but onLY

redimmti with medium t o high ice conr.acs

Slow neat wutfnce Boil crmep

Silt v i t h aome organic contmnc; Bandy or t ave l ly r i l r or clay; oar. till; 10-25 pmt f

cant #conea

Lema than 15 degrees

Poorly drainod; w a u r t ab l r

chan 0.5 m

Ocerrtonal; aubjrcr t o once in 5 to 50 years

g8n8tAtly 188s

P . m f t 0 8 K Vith up t o 1 m o f near- rurfrcm 8adiment having wdirap EO high i c e contmea

Slighr chance o f glacis? advance; widenee o f frult-

10, 000 ymmrl ; ins within L4st

some rock f a l l

metres ( v m ~ e r ) Loam chan 0 .5

S i l ry rand snd s i l t y ravel;

cent ston. lea8 2g-50 pet

Crutrr than 15 degrma

Pemanencly wmc:

tinuourlg near 8urfnce

Frequmnt ; mub j ect t o aK laast once &

WIL8f CAbiO C m -

y#r

coneirmour prm-

mrnrr hAVlng high frost with redi-

ground ice contrncr

chan 1 m eo depthr gtmarer

Rapid soil creep or ro l i f lucr fon prm- V4il; por r ib i l i t y of Londaiid8. fault

W Q C U t 8 , , s e d h a c induced a w t a ~ e

l iqu t f ie r t ion , or lacier advance uitR- n nexc 100 yearn

Ganmnlly I C r u t f a m

h a d and gravel; greater than 50 prtcent stonas peat

f

90

surface, The prevention of pollution through the movement of surface or ground water to terrain surrounding the facilities was considered to be of prime importance in t he i r location. Minimal maintenance of berms and other confinements to the movement of pollutants was also considered paramount.

The guidelines for sanitary landfills are generally less severe than for sewage lagoons as no fluid pollutants are initially introduced. Thus the suitability maps give a mare conservative evaluation of terrain for use of sanitary landfills than sewage lagoons; in many cases the suitability classification for sanitary landfills can be adjusted to the next higher suita- b i l i t y classification to that which i s shown on the suitability maps f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills.

Locations where grain s i ze analysis have been completed are plotted on Map 6.3.3 and show the basis on which the material compositions and permeabilities have been related. Grain s ize distributions for typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on Map 6 . 3 . 3 are shown in Appendix B .

In addition to drainage and material stoniness, many of the above terrain factors would also affect lagoon and landfill construction and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for sewage lagoons and sani- t a ry landfills are defined in Table 6 . 3 . 3 .

91

Areas containing p o s s i b l e optimum locations f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are contained within those areas classified as FAIRLY GOOD on the suitability map. Other pocsible locations are present in areas classif ied as FAIR and east of Burwash Landing in the area classified as POOR. In the latter area sites would be required where compact till with low ice contents was present near the surface.

6 . 3 . 4 Suitability for Septic Systems

The suitability map f o r septic systems (Map 6.3.4) assumes that t he effluent from a septic tank is to be distributed in the natural surficial material by means of a sub-surface or raised tile beds. It was assumed that it would be required that water bodies and water supplies within 60 metres and surface water are not to be polluted by the septic system. It is also assumed that the systems are to be emplaced by standard procedures and that gmund surface maintenance following ernplacement is to be minimal.

The permeability of surficial materials with a terrain type was considered extremely important in evaluating terrain types f o r septic field suitability because of the absorption of effluent without the pollution of water supplies or water bodies greater than 60 metres from the septic field is of prime importance. Grain size distributions for typical materials collected during field investigations and located on Map 6 . 3 . 4 are shown in Appendix 8 .

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial sewage systems emplacement and maintenance and haw they affect absorption of effluent and pollution prevention. The material composition, mainly i t s permeability, was considered of prime importance in evaluating terrain types for septic field suitability. Other terrain factors such as slope, drainage, permafrost , flood hazards, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances,

92

Table 6 . 3 . 4 Tatrain Propmrty Guidallnas tor Arressing Sutcabilfcv for Septic Syacomr 0 l f f a r . n ~ ataeon o f individual tatrain factors a t e establishad thae allow rhm Juicabi l i ty of cha undisturbed terrain typa eo br waluaccd tor conlcnrction And Wincenance o f septic syarana.

Pemrfrorr and i c a contomta (Pf)

2 Nonr

None

V a v rum; aubjmet Occ~4iond: 4ubjaet eo onco ta LOO

0cC.rlonAr;

year4 or laam t o once ia 10 pear4 or hma

r u b act EO oncm in 3 yamro or lass

fer having shallow

R.t. p.fi.Pro.t: enaraLly tw giwnd

Dlacontinwur p e m a - Pamafrome pramant frmc wich fare arrm

( 0 .5 a) ordiment v l t h madtun to high ica concanta

Minor soil creep Somm tock t a l l ; s l i g h t chanca o f glac ia t advmcm; 8vidrncn o f IauLs- fng v i th in 1a.e 10,000 ymara

Crmacar than 1 ta 1.5 m 0 . 5 EO 1 m 1.S m

Coneinuous pamafrost vtth many a r m s having shallow S d i m i n K v i th mdlW

contents EO high grouno tca

Rapid $oil CrAap,

nivacion; activa aoliflucrion a d

ac SiCE a t on landalida aecivicy

adjocanc rlopa: p o a a i b i l i t y of g l rc i a r advauca or Liquifaction wishia ne%% LOO yaare

Canarally lass chan 0 . 5 m

93

liquefaction and faulting, and bedrock depth primarily affect the continued prevention of pollution of adjacent surface water, water bodies and water supplies; and to a lesser degree the emplacement and maintenance of the septic systems. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability f o r septic systems are defined in Table 6 . 3 . 4 .


The suitability map (Map 6.3.5) assumes that the construction materials are to be used as aggregate or fill. The suitability of the different terrain types are evaluated according to the quality and quantity of the surficial materials within it, and the workability and ease of extraction of those materials. Materials that are required to be impermeable such as dikes are excluded from consideration; the suitability for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills give a partial assessment of suitability f o r impermeable rnaterigls. The suitability of bedrock as a construction material has not been evaluated. Terrain types containing gravel and sand with potential as aggregate are given the highest suitability classification as they can easily be adapted to most construction purposes. Other terrain types are evaluated on the basis of the compressibility, compactibility, susceptibility to frost action and surface trafficability of the surficial materials within them.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect usefulness and versatility of the contained materials as a construction material, the ease or difficulty of extraction, and the volumes that could be extracted from a unit area. Material composition and staniness primarily affects usefulness as a construction material, whereas slope, drainage, permafrost, f lood hazard, miscellaneous hazards, and bedrock depth affect the extractable volumes per unit area and the ease or difficulty of extraction. The terrain property guidelines are defined in Table 6 . 3 . 5 .

Slope (01)

Hazards due t o 0

glaciot advance. f au l t a c t iv i ty ,

ecc. ( h t )

m 8 a W48tag..

None

VI- tare; subject once in 100 y u r s o r 1.l.

sutzmred p.rari*osc v irh lar ground i ce concmts

No hrurdr Flow nur-8utfac~ lo i f crmep

Greeter than 2 m Beeworn 1.5 4nd 2 m

Occasional to rare: rub ecf to onel in 5 to 100 ymarn

Pommfroet ganerally preaent. but only rare areas having ahellow

wtth d i m t o high (< 0,s m) rediment

lce contents

Ra i d soil creep or

of f ru l t ln wi th in aofi~luctiw; widenee

chance o f glacier laar 10,008 yeerr: advance

Bewmen 20 and 30 dcgrres

p w t : *car Imperfecz t o

0.5 I tab10 larr thaa

Frequent; uubjacc t o lmaul flood

Penarfro#c w i t h up to 1 m of neat-surface aedi-

t o high ice contenta

Poaribi l i ty o f landslide, rurface

nee l iquif ica- rupture or smdi-

tfon within ncxc

ment h8Ving medium

100 yeAr8

Between 0.5 and 1.0 m (venear)

claymy a&. thick cover rand and gravel;

Itone. 2s EO 50 perccnt

S i l t . C l A

(b1ank.t) over

Very frmquant:

once per year flooded mota than

Continuow permfroat v ich 8edkunts having high ground ice

greaser than 1 m contmta t o depths

of Landriidr and Tuminenc possibi l i ty

rediment Liqulfica- cion

Peat. organic s i l t s ; greater than 50 percent stones

95

A large source of aggregate have been outlined on map 6.3.5. The grave1:sand:fines ratios (based on grain size distribution obtained during this and earlier investigations), and the cu. metres per hectare of deposits (based on our estimate of minimal extraction thicknesses) are indicated for it. Other potential sources are available and have been utilized in areas classified as F - p f and F - pf, mt. Gravel and sand is plentiful in the area classified as F - pf as indicated in scarps along Kluane Lake, but requires delineation. In the area classified F - pf, mt, till generally overlies gravel, but the till often is utilized as fill or road binder in p i t development.

Plentiful supplies of gravel and sand are available within the confines of map 6.3.5 and immediately west and east of it.

6 . 4 Unique Features

No particularily uz5,que geologic features are present a t Burwash Landing, althaugh both the alluvial-fan surface (map 6.1) and beach ridges on its surface and east of Burwash Landing relat'e to drainage and elevation changes of Kluane Lake. Submerged stumps are also visible i n shallow water, However, better examples of these phenomena are present at many other localities around Kluane Lake.

6.5 Hydrogeology

6.5.1 Well Survey

Four water wells are presently in use in the community of Burwash Landing. These wells are located on Map 6.5.1 and available hydrogeological data are summarized in Table 6.5.1.

Table: 6 .5 .1 HYDROGEOLOGICAL DATA AT BURWASH LANDING

Well NO * Description Depth Static Level Use Y i e l d

31. Burwash 8 . 2 m 6 . 4 m Airport

drinking and t o i l e t

2700 l /hr alluvial-fan gravels

B2. Burwash Lodge 5 m near surf ace hotel Well No. I

B2a. Well No. 2 48 rn flowing abandoned

B 3 . Priest ' s 56 rn 3 m Home

domestic

B4. Indian 72 m near surface drinking Village Wash water House

enough for large lodge and rest- aurant

100 l/mfn

not known

potable water for 40 people

no data

gravel aquifer

no data

no data

97

Well Bl at the Burwash airport is a shallow well completed into well washed alluvial-fan gravels. The static level (i.e. watertable) in this unconfined aquifer is 6.4 m from the ground sureace and penetration of 1.8 m section of the gravels with 15 cm casing furnishes a 2700 l/hr water

yield.

Stratigraphic logs were not kept during the drilling of wells at Burwash Lodge, the priest's residence or the Indian village wash house. Brandon (1965) reported a 100 l/minute flowing well had been constructed into a gravel aquifer at the Burwash Lodge prior t o 1965. Apparently this well was abandoned due to freezing and/or silt problems and a shallow well is presently being used. The type of aquifers which are being utilized in the Indian village and at the priest's residence are not known, and high water y i e l d s have not been demanded from these wells. Depth elevations show that water is being dram frcm different stratigraphic horizons in each well, and suggests that aquifers are both thin and discontinuous laterally.

6.5.2 Water Quality

Previous comments about the physical separation of water bearing horizons are confirmed by the water chemistry of the groundwater in each well (see table 6 . 5 . 2 )

Airport well: Calcium (minor magnesium)-Bicarbonate (minor sulphate) type

Burwash Lodge well: Calcium (minor magnesium)-Bicarbonate

Priest's Residence well: Calcium (minor sodium)-Bicarbonate (minor chloride) t ype

(minor sulphate) type Indian Village well: Sodium-Bicarbonate type

None of the water analyses corresponds c lose ly with the chemistry of Kluane Lake, which is an alkali earth (i.e.

WATER CHEMISTRY OF BURWASH LANDING WELLS

(in mg/l unless indicated)

B1: Airport

B2 : Burwash Inn

33 : Priest's

house

B4 : Indian Village well

Kluane Lake (at Destruction Bay €or com- parison)

228 710 82.5

153 360 33.1

120 350 31.7

172 430 17.5

86 380 2 7 . 5

32.5

12.5

13.7

20.6

16.3

5 . 0 3.0 .15 - 14.6 38 89 - Alluvial-fan surf icial aquifer

3.5 0.75 .44 - -35 35 8.6 - Shallow aquifer

31.2 1.5 - .22 N . D 43 31 Deep confined aquifer

40 2.12 .05 - - 41 153 Deep confined aquifer

4 .25 .25 -05 - - - 91 - Lake sample

497 339 * 5 very hard

252 134 hard

245 135.4 hard

301 128.2 hard

266 135.6 hard

99

calcium with lesser magnesium) sulphate (minor bicarbonate) water type. It is possible however, that the Burwash Lodge well is recharging from the lake as the depth to water is approximately "

at lake level and the well is in close proximity t a the lake. Water exchange reactions between lake water and clay minerals in the surficial materials are one explanation fo r the observed variations in chemistry.

In general, all samples revealed that groundwater is hard or very hard in the Burwash Landing area, Values of 128 - 135 mg/l were found in deep wells in the village while the airport well has very hard water, Surprisingly, this alluvial-fan.aquifer is also the most highly mineralized water in the area with a conductivity of 710 umhos/cm and total dissolved solids content of about 497 mg/l.

All water samples are considered to be chemically potable except the airport well. A nitrate value of 14.6 mg/l found in th is analysis exceeds the 10 mg/l Canadian Public Health standard and may be indicative of septic tank effluent contamina- t i on of th i s water supply. The Burwash Lodge sample slightly exceeded the .30 mg/l iron standard but is a negligible health risk and water from this aquifer would not require treatment.

6.5.3 Groundwater Flow Regime

The lack of detailed stratigraphic data at depths below 20 rn from the ground surface in the Burwash area restricts flow interpretation severely. However, existing flow information is depicted on Figure 6.5.3 based on the geological infomation shown in cross section as Figure 6.1. Hydraulic conductivity data are summarized f o r various terrain units in Table 6.5.3. A summary of known aquifer characteristics follows.

West of the village a large alluvial-fan complex

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF GEOLOGIC MATERIALS TABLE: 6.5.3 AT BURWASH LANDING

Hydraulic Conductivity Sample No. Location Terrain Unit Description (cm/second)

SY 39 Shoreline cut E (loess) clayey sandy silt 2 . 5 x

SY 40 Highway cut M (till matrix) clayey silty sand 2.25 x

fY 60 Gravel p i t G

PY 57 Gravel p i t G

sandy gravel 3 . 0 4 x 10-I

gravelly sand 4.41 x lo'*

102

precipitation through the openwork permeable gravel of which it is composed and by lateral water flow through the fan complex from the Duke River system, Horizontal movement with minimal vertical hydraulic gradients are expected. Little downward movement of water i n t o the less permeable strata which underlie the fan is l i k e l y to be occuring. This unconfined aquifer has an excellent potential to yield high quantities of groundwater and large diameter wells could be constructed in this material with yields of greater than 250 litres/second expected. Peripheral and distal areas of the fan typically have f iner grained strata with abundant organic horizons and may have poor yields and water quality than more central areas. Two constraints are evident if this aquifer is to be used as a water source. First, it has a high potential to become contaminated if wells are situated near sewage disposal, hydrocarbon storage or other potential pollution sources. Secondly, 'freezing problems would severely hamper well use during winter months.

In places, as is apparently the case in the shallow well (B2) at Burwash Lodge, a discontinuous layer of outwash sand (aG) and gravel underlies a thin loess veneer (dv) and overlies a till unit (tMp) of unknown thickness, This unit may b e water bearing and may possibly be recharging from Kluane Lake in places very near the lake. Farther away from the lake a nor ther ly f low of water in the gravels above the till sheet is likely with very loca l recharge from surface precipitation. Wells in th i s aquifer are subject to the two constraints mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Deep wells B2 and B3 have been drilled i n t o an interbedded till and silty outwash deposit which is at least 72 m thick under Burwash Landing. Aquifers in this strata probably consist of outwash gravel lenses which are probably moderately permeable, of limited lateral and vertical extent, and of variable thickness. The geochemical evidence previously mentioned indicates that wells B2, B3 and 134 bottom in different, probably

103

unconnected aquifers. The yields of these outwash channel aquifers are unknown but are likely to be low. A 100 llminute flow reported from a 48 m deep abandoned well at the Burwash Lodge is the only y i e l d flgure available. This w e l l flowed af ter construction indicating a recharge elevation above 797 m (2615 E t ) asl. The source of this water is unknown as hydraulic connections may exist with either the alluvial-fan complexes east or west of the village or with mountains south of Burwash Landing. Neither well B1 or B2 flows however, indicating local recharge conditions in these aquifers .

The terrain immediately south of Burwash Landing is a zone of continuous permafrost over 20 m in depth (till and outwash units), typi f ied by occasional ice lenses. Taliks may exist within the till and s i l ty gravel unit which could alter flow directions and characteristics significantly. No drilling and hydraulic observations have been made however, and the effects of permafrost on thc; flow regime i s unknown.

6.5.4 Water Supply Potential

Deep d r i l l e d wells into glaciofluvial deposits which underlie Burwash Landing will provide the best water supply far future development in this area. These wells should provide water with a temperature above freezing in winter, will be of acceptable water quality f o r human consumption and will remain free of contamination if properly constructed. This conclusion is based on the premise that high yields (i.e. greater than 100 l/minutc) will not be required fox most future development in this village, It is likely that single d r i l l e d wells could be used to supply a cluster of 2-5 residential homes if required, thereby reducing costs significantly.

104

7 0 CHAMPAGNE

7.1 Geologic Setting

Champagne is located in the middle of the broad Takhini Valley on the Dezadeash River. Here the Dezadeash River bends sharply from northeastward course out of a narrow valley in the Dezadeash Ranges to a westward course along the Takhini Valley. Except f o r local relief due to the ridge of glaciofluvial material east of Champagne, sand dunes and stream incission,the valley f l o o r at Champagne is flat; elevations range between 700 and 710 metres.

A t Champagne thick unconsolidated deposits are the result of deposition during Pleistocene g lac ia l and interglacial periods. The upper sequence of sediment however i s mainly due to deposition of clayey silt and sandy silt in a large glacial kce, Glacial Lake Champagne,

During the last glaciation of t h i s area ice flowed down the Dezadeash River valley to coalesce in the Takhini Valley with ice from other north-south oriented valleys. This i c e then flowed north through gaps in the north side of the Takhini Valley such as the Mendenhall River valley. During the initial stages of deglaciation an esker appears to have developed in an inter- lobate subglacial environment at Champagne, Following further deglaciation, but before development of present drainage, Glacial Lake Champagne formed and covered the Takhini Valley - silt deposited near the calving ice margin was generally sandier than that at some distance.

Immediately following drainage of Glacial Lake Champagne, wind deflation of sandy lacustrine materials began and dune f ie lds became established; some of these dune fields migrated north up valley walls into alpine passes. The Dezadeash River also began

Table: 7.1 Descriptive Legend of Surficial Materials of Champagne

Stability and Geomorphology, Nature of Materials Permafrost, Ground Ice, Miscellaneous Engineering Potential

Terrain Type Slopes, Drainage and Thickness Active Layer Characteristics Hazard

s m up to 12 degrees; well drained.

Eolian veneer on lacustrine plain; flat ; moderately

E Sand dunes; slopes

f E v L C P well drained,

5 E* A,

Eolian veneer on esker-like ridge; slopes up to 20 degrees on flanks; well drained,

s ' b Eolian blanket on lacustrine plain; flat t o gently

drained.

Eolian veneer on lacustrine plain; flat to very gently sloping; moderately well to well drained.

A sloping; well

s E, E LP

Between 2 and 10 m of sand over clay, sand and gravel.

Between 0 and 1.0 m of fine silty sand and silt over 20 m plus of clay.

Between 0 and 1.0 m of sand over 0-0.5 m of clay over 20 m plus of gravel and sand.

Between 1 and 3 m of sand over 20 m plus of clay.

Between 0 and 1.0 m of sand over 3 m plus of interbedded marl, clay silt and sand.

Unfrozen, Loose sand only fair foundation material.

Generally unfrozen; few patches of permafrost possible with low to medium ground ice content . Unfrozen.

Generally unfrozen.

Fair to poor foundation material.

Loose sand only fair foundation material; spoil source of aggregate and fill.

Materials only fair to poor foundation material,

Sand sub j ec t to deflation and blow-outs.

Slight possibility of liquefaction,

Sand subject to deflation and blow-outs.

Generally unfrozen; few patches of permafrost possible with low to medium ground ice content.

Fair to poor foundation material.

Some beds possibly susceptible to liquefaction.

Table: 7.1 (cont'd)

C Eolian blanket on

-s I, 5 P v

l acus t r ine p l a in ; f l a t t o gent ly s loping; wel l drained.

Eolian blanket ever f la t - lying sand; f l a t to gently sloping; moderately well to wel l d ra ined .

Lacustrine veneer over f l a t - lying sand ; moderately well drained.

Lacustr ine plain; f l a t , poorly drained.

Between 1 and 3 m of Unfrozen. sand over 3 m plus of interbedded marl. clay, s i l t and sand.

Fair t o poor foundation Some beds material. poss ib ly

suscept ib le to l iquefac t ion .

Between 1 and 3 m of Unfrozen. sand over 3 m plus of pebbly sand.

Loose sand o n l y f a i r foundation material .

Sand subject t o d e f l a t i o n .

More than 3 metres of Unfrozen. sand with pebbly layers toward base.

Interbedded clay, s i l t Few patches of th in Poor foundation material . Slight possi- and f i n e sand of permafrost; ground i c e unknown depth. content expected to be l iquefac t ion .

b i l i t y of

low t o medium where f rozen; ac t ive l ayer 0.3-1.0 m plus .

F loodpla in ; f la t , Between 1 and 3 m but with few small plus of interbedded scarps; drainage s i l t , c lay and f i n e va r i ab le from poor sand. through moderately w e l l .

poor foundation material. Subject to frequent flooding.

1 I 107

I I

W 4 W

I t s

A A'

..*........ r - " . * .

SILT (Ll C L A Y (L)

F IOURE '7,l

GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION CHAMPAGNE

108

to erode to its present level at this time. Broad terraces probably formed because its downward erosion may have been inhibited by clogging of its course with wind-blown sand and slow down-cutting of its course west of Champagne. In fact, during the hypsithermal its lower course may have been blocked causing a shallow lake in which marly sediments were deposited to form in the vicinity of Champagne.

Presently, the meandering Dezadeash River is under- cutting some banks and expanding its meander plain (cf, map 7.1) *

Small active blow-outs are a l so present En the sand dunes.


Map 7.1 and figure 7.1 show the distribution of terrain types at Champagne. The geomorphology, slope distribution, drainage, nature and thickness of materials, permafrost distribution, ground ice contents, active layer thicknesses, ground stability, engineering characteristics and potential hazards for each mapped terrain type are given in Table 7.1. Detailed grain s i z e analysis for typical surficial materials are given in Appendix B.

7 . 3 Suitability Maps

Suitability maps f o r road construction, building construction and underground utility installation, sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills, septic systems and construction materials including granular materials are presented (Maps 7.3.1 - 7.3.5). These suitability maps are derived following the techniques out- l ined in Section 3.3 of this report.

7.3.1 Suitability f o r Road Construction

The suitability map f o r road construction (Map 7.3 .l) ,assumes that roads for year-round use are to be

LO9 ...

rte4tar chmn 2 m Cre8c.t chnn l * O m

Lorn chan 12 dmgreer Slopar bocwaon 12 and LS dmfraas

vat.? cabla tear chan 0 . 5 m

Emperfrct eo poor;

Consinuous p e d r o s s uich aedfm*ncr hrv- Lng high ground tc. concenca eo arpchr grmerr chan 1 m

Poarfbilitp o f Lad- slide. sadimane * Liquiffcasion vichin nexc io0 yearri rapid r o l i t l u c t i w , nfvrrfon or rurfaco crmrp

110

constructed and maintained on undisturbed terrain. For the purposes of drainage it is assumed the roads are graded, and ditches are present where required. The subgrade is to consist of materials underlying the roadway and the base material is to be locally obtained where possible, No provision is made in the suitability map for the source of surfacing material, which is assumed to be stabilized crushed gravel, till or rock.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect the initial construction and how they affect load capacities and maintenance. Slope, drainage, permafrost, bedrock depth, and material primarily affect initial construction, whereas flood hazard, ice contents, and miscellaneous hazards primarily affect maintenance. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for highway and road construction and maintenance are defined in Table 7.3.1.

7.3.2 Suitability for Building Construction and Utility Installation

The suitability map for building construction and utility installation (Map 7.3.2) assume that buildings are to have basements and utilities are buried in the ground, It is assumed that standard construction procedures are used except that special insulative procedures are used in areas of permafrost. It is also assumed that ground conditions are such that some mobility is viable in the vicinity of the buildings, and t ha t utility and ground surface maintenance is minimal.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial construction, mainly excavation and how they affect the continued stability and maintenance of the building, building site and utility. S l o p e , permafrost, bedrock depth, material composition and stoniness primarily affect construction and excavation whereas drainage, f lood hazard, ice contents, and hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, faulting, liquefaction primarily

111

Table 7.3.2 Terrain Property Guidelines for Assessing Suitability for Building Conrrtuction and Utility Inscallation

Different atatea o f individual terrain factors are esrablished that allow the suirabilicy o f the undisturbed terrain type to be evaluated for construction or inacrll~rion and maintenance of buildings ana unoetgrouna ucxlitiea.

Degree of Terrain Suitability

Terrain Factor - Unruitable - U bFb0l) Good - G Fairly Cood - PC Fair (Marginal) - P Poor - P (very poor)

Plwd h%azd None (fl)

Poraufroat m d No pernufroat 2.3

i c e contenta (Pf)

Hazards due to mass wastage. fault activity,

ecc. 1 (hr) (glacier advance.

4

Bedrock depth (br)

Material composition and rtoninemm (mt)

No haxsrds

Alwrya falter Khan 2.f m

Gravel and rand;

atones 18.. randy till:

Khan 52

Lesa than 5 degree.

Well to moderately well drained; graatrr

watar table than 1.5 metran co

None

Scrttorrd amufromt

ground i C 8 but gcnerarly no

No hazards

Uarutly greates than 2 m

Clayey till; clayey silt and silty rand lean than 1 m thick; stoner 1144 than 15%

Modorataly well to imperfect drainage;

water table 0.S - 1.0 metres to

Very rare; subject to

ox less once in 100 years

Pe-fr0.t generally praaent. but on1 faro areal having &ow ((1.0 metres) sedi- mtnt with madim to high ice contents

Slow near-surfact r o l l creep; within active fault 1 tm of poet glacial

1 - 2 merea

Thick ailty rand, silt, silty cla scone. 15 to Z S X .

Slopes between Gteaeer ehn 20 12end 20 dsgreer degrees

Irnperfecrly or poorly drained; water table continu-

Poor drainage;

f . 5 m to water cable

OU41y n u r rurfac*

Occa6rional; sub ect to once

Annual flooding

tn h t o 100 ytars

Permafroat with Continuoua permafroat up KO 1 mecre a f with sediments hav- near-surface sedi- ing high ground i c e ment having medium contents to dtprhr to high ice con- greatmr than 1 metre tentr; isolated sediment at depth with high i c e contentm

Slfghc chance of Possibility o f land- glacier advance slides, fault- or sedimenr li us- induced surface faction; rock jell rupture, sediment pteronc; evidenct liquefaction or of faultin within ghcier advance laat 10,008 years Within next LOO

yerra; rapid soli-

or nail, creep fluction. nivation

Lcrr than 1 metre Canorally at surface

Thick clay; Organics greater organics to 2 rn than S O X ; stones fn drpth, stone8 grsaror than SO% 25 to 50%

I. For drainage charactcriration reo Canada Soil Infomation System (Canada S o i l Sutvey Comittoe, 1978).

2. In C~ILI o f buildin m without baseaentr and where the limitin faceorr are droinage, pamufrore and i c e contenta of bedrock

undirturbed terrain type and the building. in thir w d a aE conarmtion. depth, the degree o f suitability ahould be alterad t o a more favorable raring becaure of l e u interaction between Khe

3. Ice contents gtven in percent vo1-m uca14 ice: low (-10%; wdium 10-207.; high )ZO%.

4. Hazard. ouch am flooding and faflure$ due to mw-induced thawing o f peroufrort art con*idarod in Flood Hazard ( f l ) and

5. Stone. arm &fined am claatrhavtng a diamecar greater than ba, i . e . , cobble., coarae rubble. boulderr, block#.

Pen~froot and Xca Contents ( p f ) .

112

I I 1 1 1 1

af fec t stability and maintenance. The terrain property guidelines f o r assessing suitability for building construction and utility installation are defined in Table 7 . 3 . 2 .

7.3.3 Suitability and Optimum Locations for Sewage Lagoons and Sanitary Landfills

The suitability map f o r sewage lagoons and

through the construction of berms on the undisturbed ground surface. The prevention of pollution through the movement of surface or Eround water to terrain surrounding the facilities

Minimal maintenance of berms and other confinements to the movement of pollutants was also considered paramount.

The guidelines f o r sanitary landfills are gener- I

a l l y less severe than f o r sewage lagoons as no fluid pollutants are initially introduced. Thus the suitability maps give a more conservative evaluation of terrain f o r than sewage lagoons; in many cases the for sanitary landfills can be adjusted b i l i t y classification to that which is

use of sanitary landfills suitability classification to the next higher suita- shown on the suitability

maps for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills.

Of pollution. Slope, flood hazard, permafrost, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advance, faulting, liquefaction, bedrock depth and material composition were considered primarily f o r thsir influence on pollutant confinement.

113

Hazard d m ,to nuas w a n t y o . fruit act ivity glacier advancr. e t c . (ht)

' 4

No p M r o s r

Modrraraly vat1 dr~inod: water t8ble genataily 1.0 m p Lur

Very farm: nrbject co onem in 100 yearn or 1.18

Scattared pafMfromt u i c h lou i c r contosits

wacm table genmtaily Impetfmctly drainad;

0.5 to 1.0 m

Rrrm; aubjace t o once i n 50 y8arr tn 100

Pamafrome genmrally prmsmnc, bus only rsra areas having ahallow (<O. 5 m) smdimonta v i t h medium t o high iem contmncs

Slw near aurface aoil crmep

y.8?*

mecreo (vmemr) Cecwen 0 . 5 and 1 . 0

S i l t w i t h some organic content; kndy or rrvelly r i le or d a y ; oar. cill; 10-25 per f

c m t stonor

Lsar than 15 dmgrrer

vater table Poorly drainad;

genaraily 1e.r than 0.5 m

Occarionai; rubjact to once in 5 t o 50 YrASS

up t o 1 m o f naar- Pamfrosc wieh

surface radimrnt hsvtn medium EO high fce contmta

Sl ighc ChAncr of glactrt advance; wldence o f faulting within Lart 10,000 y m t r ; some rock € a i l

Crcrcar than 15 dmgrear

Pcmnanr ly wmc; wataf table con- tinuously neat s u r f a ~ a

Frequent ; aubj mct

year t o a t ieaat onca a

Continuouo p c e "

manes having high frost v irh ardi-

ground ice concmncs

chan 1 q

or so l i f luc t ion pra- Rapid soil crerp

v a i i ; possibility of

induced rurfsce l m d r l l d o . frulr

rupture. aedimnc

glacier advmco with- liquif icacion. or

i n nrxt 100 years

to d8pthr g t ~ c e r

Generally a t surface

Sand and gravel, &rerecr than >O parcens otonan paot

114

Locations where grain s i z e analysis have been completed are plotted on Map 7.3.3 and show the b a s i s on which the material compositions and permeabilities have been related. Grain size distributions f o r typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on Map 7.3.3 are shown in Appendix I3

In addition to drainage and material stoniness, many of the above terrain factors would also affect lagoon and landfill construction and maintenance, The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are defined in Table 7 . 3 . 3 .

Areas containing optimum locations f o r sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills are contained in the areas classi- f i e d as FAIRLY on the suitability map near 210PY. Some optimum locations m y be present in the area classified as F - mt at Champagne, but site aczessment of materials will be required.

7 . 3 . 4 Suitability for S e p t i c Systems

The suitability map for septic systems (Map 7 . 3 . 4 ) assumes that the effluent from a septic tank is to be distributed in the natural surficial material by means of a sub-surface or raised tile beds. It was assumed that it would be required that water bodies and water supplies within 60 metres and surface water are not to be polluted by the septic system. It is also assumed that the systems are to be emplaced by standard procedures and that ground surface maintenance following emplacement is to be minimal.

The permeability of surficial materials with a terrain type was considered extremely important in evaluating terrain types for septic field suitability because the absorption of effluent without the pollution of water s u p p l i e s or water

115

Table 7.3 .0 Terrain Property Guidelines for A~aess ing Sui rab i l i tv for Septic Systems

Differenc states of individual ccrrain factorr are er tabl ished rhac allow the suirabil icy o f the undiarurbed terrain type to be evaluaccd for conatruction and maintenance of sept ic syrccms.

Degree o f Terra in Sui tab i l i ty

Terrain Factor ( a F b o l ) Good - G , Fairly Good - FC Fair (Marginal) - F Poor - P (very poor)

Unsuitable - U

Grearer than 15 degree$

Poorly drained;

common rurface ponding

Lea9 than 3 degrmes

Well drained; wacer tables deeper than 1.5 m

Leas than 8 degree. Between 0 and 15 degree.

Imperfectly to poorly drained; seasonal surface ponding o f vacet

Occreional; subject co once i n S ycnrn or less

Permafrosr present with rare areas having ahallow

with medium to ( 0 . 5 m) redimant

high ice content6,

Soma rock f a l l ; s l i g h t chance of glac ie r advance; evidence of f a u l t -

10,000 yearr ing within la r t

Hodarocely well t o imperfectly drained; water table. urually 0 . 5 m below surface

Annual flooding Occarional: aubject to onco In 10 yemrs o r 1.10

None

" R~re pezmafrort; generally no ground ice

Dtrcontinwu8 pama- f ront

Conelnuour perma-

aftas having shallow f r o s c with many

sediment with medium eo high ground ice contents

Ra i d s o i l cteap, so! if luccion and nivation: active landsl ide act ivi ty a t s i t e or on

posa ib i l i ty o f adjacent rlopc:

glac ie r advance or

next 100 year. l iquifact ioa within

Peraafromr andL ice contents (Pf)

None

Minor soi l creep Hazards due t o 3 mass vaotrge,

g lac ie r advance. f a u l t a c t i v i t y ,

etc . (hx)

None ;lono

Bedrock dapth (br)

Greater t b n 1 . 5 m

1 t o 1.5 m 0 . 5 ro 1 m Lssr than . 5 m. uneven thickness (veneer)

Grwel , s i l t and CLAY content greater than 70 percene of uni t ; clayey till

Generally lea. 0 . 5 m

chan

Mactrial comporitl n and rtanineoo z (mt)

Fine to C O A ~ I I rand; loooe randv till; lese. than 5 percent a i l c . clay and a tonal

Sand and loore randy

cent component o f till; 5 EO 20 per-

r i l t , clay and aeonas

Sand, gravelly sand. sandy till;

component of s i l t , 20 t o 50 percent

clay and stone6

Gravel, clay, s i l t .

greater than SO scone contenc

porcmc; peat

1. For drainage ChArACte?iZACiOn re. Cam& Soil Information S y m c m (Canada Soil Survey Cowmittam, 1978).

2. Icm contmncr Civm i n par cmr vo1-e exceae Leer low <-lo%; mediwn 10-20%; high >20%.

3. Iiazards ruch am flooding and failutem due co man-induced thawing of pamafroat are conrldmred i n Flood Hazard Ifl .) and

4. Seonor 4ro d e f t n d aa clartr having I d i u n t r s great.? than 6 a, %.e.. cobbler, coaram rubble. boulder.. block..

Pesaufroot md le0 contmtr ( p f ) .

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1

116

bodies greater than 60 metres from the septic field is of prime importance. Grain s i z e distributions fox typical materials collected during the field investigations and located on Map 7 . 3 . 4 are shown in Appendix B.

The terrain factors were evaluated on how they affect initial sewage systems emplacement and maintenance and haw they affect absorption of effluent and pollution prevention. The material composition, mainly its permeability, was considered of prime importance in evaluating terrain types f o r septic field suitability. Other terrain factors such as slope, drainage, permafrost, flood hazards, hazards due to mass wastage, glacier advances, liquefaction and faulting, and bedrock depth primarily affect the continued prevention of pollution of adjacent surface water, water bodies and water supplies; and to a lesser degree the emplacement and maintenance of the septic systems. The terrain property guidelines for assessing suitability for septic systems are defined ir Table 7 . 3 . 4 .


The suitability map (Map 7.3.5) assumes that the construction materials are to be used as aggregate or fill. The suitability of the different terrain types are evaluated according to the quality and quantity of the surficial materials within it, and the workability and ease of extraction of those materials. Materials that are required to be impermeable such as dikes are excluded from consideration; the suitability for sewage lagoons and sanitary landfills give a partial assessment of suita- b i l i t y f o r impermeable materials. The suitability of bedrock as a construction material has not been evaluated. Terrain types coiltaining gravel and sand with potent ia l as aggregate are given the highest suitability classification as they can easily be adapted to most construction purposes. Other terrain types are

I I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I

117

Hurrds duo t o men4 waatage, fault activity, glacior rdvanco, etc. (hz)

G

Bedrock depth (br) ?I.trtial eolapoaiti n and reoninmaa s (mt 1

tear than Batwem 5 a d 12 5 degroma dagrama

Rapid t o well; Well t o wderaemly WCK u b l m >2 m

vmll; w e a r tabla 1.0 to 2 m

Vary raro: aubjact

or laar onem in 100 y e u s

Scattarad pomafro$r with low ground ice centant.

Crmscr than 2 Between 1 . 5 bnd 2 m

Gravel and rand; Sile7 rmd. mil rranom lesr chan 3 petcmt chin cover (veneer)

gravml, randy c%;

ovqr rand o f tmvel; 4cmma 1eaa c k n 10 p.tcmnt

Batwean 12 and 20 de~roer

wall; water tabla 0.5 Imperfect eo modrtnsaly

t o 1.0 m

Craacar than 1.0 a (b1~nk.r) T i l l , r l l t y f ine sand: atonor lesa than 25 pytcmnr

Batveen 20 And 30 drgre.4

Tmperfmct to pmr; vater table lesa than 0.5 o

Frequent; rubjact eo annual flood

Prymafroat virh up to 1 m o f

rnrnc having madium naar-aurface radi-

COnflllt8 EO high i c r

Pomlbi l i ty of

tUpCUt8 Or 8edi- lmdal ide , rurfrca

rncne liquifica- tion within next 100 YCASS

Becueen 0 . 5 snd 1.0 m (v8ne.t)

clayey a J L . chick cover (blanket) over mnd and gravel;

sranms 25 to 50 peremnt

S f i t , C h

Ereator than 30 drgreea

water tabLe near Permanently vat ;

rurfrce

Very frequent;

onca per yaat floodad more than

Cantinuow pmrmafroac vich redbencs hav- Lng high ground icm contanca co dmpehr grmacmr than 1 I

Laam ehan 0 . 5 m

118

evaluated on the basis of the compressibility, compactibility, susceptibility to frost action and surface trafficability of the surficial materials within them.

The terrain factors were evaluated on the basis of how they affect usefulness and versatility of the contained materials as a construction material, the ease or difficulty of extraction, and the volumes that could be extracted from a unit area. Material composition and stoniness primarily affects usefulness as a construction material, whereas slope, drainage, permafrost, f lood hazard, miscellaneous hazards, and bedrock depth affect the extractable volumes per unit area and the ease or difficulty of extraction. The terrain property guidelines are defined in Table 7.3 5

A major source of aggregate has been outlined on Map 7.3.5. The grave1:sand:fines ratios (based on grain s ize distribution obtained.durXcg this and earlier investigations), and the cu. metres per hectare of deposits (based on our estimate Of minimal extraction thicknesses) are indicated for this source. This large source has more than adequate volumes for future needs in the Champagne area.

7.4 Unique Features

Although good examples of sand dunes and blow-outs are present in the vicinity, no unique features are present. Strati- graphy exposed along the banks of the Dezadeash River w e s t of Champagne is particularily interesting in that the sediments appear to have been deposited in a number of environments (fluvial, lacustrine, eolian) and under variable climatic conditions. Paleo-environmental studies of this sequence might be particularily interesting.

119 I 1 I I I I

7 . 5 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of Champagne is described under the headings of Well Survey, Water QuAlity, Groundwater Flow Regime and Water Supply Potential .

7.5.1 Well Survey

A survey of existing residences in the community of Champagne revealed that no wells are presently being ut i l ized for domestic water supplies. Several dug wells have been constructed in the vil lage to a depth of 10 to 12 metres but are unreliable water sources. Champagne residents are hauling water from the Dezadeash River in winter and pump water to several storage tanks in summer.

7.5.2 Water Quality

The Dezadeash River was sampled (Table 7.5.2) and analyzed. Results indicate that water is dilute with total dissolved of 89 mg/l and is s o f t with a 35.3 mg/l total hardness. The river contains alkali earth (calcium with minor magnesium) water with a bicarbonate (minor sulphate) anionic composition which i s typical of Yukon surface waters, The Dezadeash River tends to be excessively turbid due to erosion of glaciolacustrine s i l t s , which forms its banks and channel in th is area. A con- siderable length of settling time would be required t o remedy this problem due to the f i n e grain s i ze of suspended sedimentary material. High turbidity is a nuisance, not a health hazard, and the raw river water apparently is chemically potable.

7.5.3 Groundwater Flow Regime

It is reported that one water well was drilled to a 24 m depth in Champagne but went dry, “probably because of

N

U

W

0

VI

120

,12 1

poor construction and corrosion" (intera environmental consultants 1975). Without drill hole data, groundwater observations must be based only on surficial geological mapping. Much of the terrain surroundiEg Champagne is relatively flat with thick lacustrine silt deposits overlain by a fine grained veneer of aeolian sediment. These units have a very low pemeability (estimated to be less than 1 x lom6 cmlsec) and infiltration of water into these materials is negligible. Precipitation moves to the river by overland flow.

East of Champagne a broad ridge of glaciofluvial sand and gravel runs north-south and roughly parallel to the river channel, Although covered by a veneer of aeolian sand and lacustrine silts, some minimal amount of precipitation may infil- trate this more permeable landform and allow groundwater movement to the west towards the Dezadeash River (Figure 7.5.3). This flow reghe would be weak at best considering the aridity of the climate and is unver?Gied at present. Sand and gravel is exposed in basal sections of the Dezadeash River banks as shown in cross section (Figure 7.5.1). It is possible that wells into more permeable and coarser grained strata of this terrain unit could draw water from the river either by direct recharge (1. . e . the hydraulic gradient slopes eastward) or by reversing weak westerly gradients.

7 . 5 . 4 Water Supply Potential

Lacustrine units are thick and barren of water, and d r i l l e d and properly screened wells in the mare permeable and coarser sand and gravel deposits that underlie the silts are the only potential water supply source in the Champagne area, It is possible that locations nearer the river could have a higher chance of yielding adequate water supplies than more distant sites. No information is available on potential well y ie lds .

122

LEGEND

NO RECHARGE, MINOR * . OVERLAND FLOW TO RIVER : . . * DEZADEASH RIVER FLOODPLAIN

U SOME INFILTRATION WHERE POSSIBILITY OF SOME GROUNOWATER a:.:. COARSE-GRAINED MATERIAL MOVEMENT TOWARDS RIVER

EXPOSED AT SURFACE

FIGURE 7.5.3 .

GROUNDWATER FLOW CHAMPAGNE

123

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Cathro and Associates Ltd. 1977: Inventory of Existing Gravel Pits along Major Hwys.

and Communities in the Yukon Territory. A . C . 1 of 16 Beaver Creek; Vol. 1. A . C . 13 of 16 Kluane; Vol. 2 A.C. 14 of 16 Kluane-Haines + Aishihiki Rds. Reports prepared f o r Government of Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

Associated Services Ltd. 1976 : Sewerage Treatment System, Haines Junction. Report

prepared for Government of Yukon Territory. pp. 22.

Bostock, H,S. 1948: Physiography of the Canadian Cordillera, with special

reference to the area north of the fifty-fifth parallel; Geol. Sum. Can. , Mem. 247,

1969 : Kluane Lake, Yukon Ter r i to ry , its drainage and allied problems (115 G and 115 F-E&); Geol. Sum. Can., Paper 69-28.

1970: Physiographic regions of Canada; Geol. Surv. Can. Map 1254A.

Brown, R.J.E. 1967: Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1246A.

1967 : Permafrost Investigations in British Columbia and Yukon Territory, National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Technical Paper No. 253.

Day, J . H . 1962: Reconnaissance soil survey of the Takhini and Dezadeash

Valleys in the Yukon Territory; Can. Dept. Agric. Res. Br., Ottawa.

Department of Public Works, Pacific Region 1971 (?) : Inventory - Gravel and Bindor Deposits; Mile 922 to

Mile 1104, Alaska Highway, Y.T.; Section 2 , Technical Data; Volume I11 and IV.

Department of Public Works, Canada and U . S . Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 1977: Shakwak Highway Improvement, Environmental Assessment

Division, Environmental Impact Statement, British Columbia and Yukon. Canada Volume 1 of 2, Volume 2 of 2.

EBA Engineering Consultant Ltd. and F.F. Slavey and Company (Alberta) Ltd. 1978: Granular Materials Inventory, Haines Road and Haines

Kluane sections of the Alaska Highway, Yukon Territory. Prepared for Government of Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Vol. 1 and 2 .

124

Fisheries and Environmental Canada. 1978: Hydrological Atlas of Canada ( 3 4 maps)

Foothills Pipeline (Yukon) Limited. 1976 : Alignment Sheets.

Foothills Pipeline (South Yukon) Ltd. 1979: Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaska Highway

Gas Pipeline Pro j cct

Hughes, O.L., Campbell, R . B . , Muller, J.E.? and Wheeler, J.O. 1969 : Glacial limits and flow patterns, Yukon Territory, south

of 65 degrees north latitude; Geol. Sum. Canada, Paper 6 8 - 3 4 .

Hughes, O.L., Rampton, V.N., and Rutter, N.W. 1972: Quaternary geolo y and geomorphology, southern and

central Yukon; 2 2 th fnternl. Geol. Congress, Guidebook All,

Hydrogeological Consultant Ltd. 1974 : A review of Groundwater Data, Haines Junction, Y.T.

Report prepared f o r Government of Yukon. p p . 14.

Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1974 : Haincs Junction, Y . T . , Water We15 Drilling. Report

prepared for Government of Yukon. pp. 16,

Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd. 1978: Hafnes Junction, Yukon Territory, Water Well No. 2 .

Report prepared f o r Government of Yukon. pp .18

Intera Environmental Consultants 1975: Groundwater Mana ement Study of the Yukon Territory.

Report prepared f or Government of Yukon.

Kenneth, M.L. 1977: Alaska Highway Pipeline Inquiry, Ministry of supply

and Services Canada. 168 p .

Kindle, E. D . 1953 : Dezadeash map-area, Yukon Territory; Geological

Survey Canada. Memoir 268.

Kozak, L.M. and Rostad, H . P . W . 1977: Soi l Survey and Land Evaluation of the Destruction

Bay Area, Yukon Territory. Saskatchewan Institute of Redology, Publication No. 5183; 28p,

Land Resource Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, 1978: The Canada Soil Information Systems (Can 5 : 5 ) . Manual

for describing soils in the field. 91p.

125

Muller, J.E. 1967 : Kluane Lake map-area, Yukon Territory. Geological

Survey Canada, Memoir 3 4 0 .

Paci f ic Region, Department of Public Works. 1971 (?) : Inventory-Gravel and Bindor Deposits: Mile 900-1220,

Alaska Highway, Y.T.: Section 1, Line Diagram; Vol. 11.

Public Works Canada, Paci f ic Region 1976: Materials Inventory, Mile 935-1050 and Mine 1050-1150,

Alaska Highway, Technical Data.

Public Works Canada, Paci f ic Region, Whitehorse, Y.T. 1978: Shakwak, Segment 7 and 8 , Borrow pits.

Rampton, V.N. (in prep. ) : Geological Survey Canada, Paper (Kluane National

Park).

Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd . 1979 : Haines Junction Water Supply Study. Report prepared

f o r Government of Yukon.

Water Resources Section, Northern Affairs Program 1978: Small Stream Investigations i n Yukon Territory.

Department o f Indian and Northern Affairs.

1 I 1 I I

126

9.0 GLOSSARY OF GEOTECHNICAL TERMS

Active layer:

Aggregate:

Beaded autwash :

Bearing capacity:

Berm :

Braided drainage pat tern :

Colluvium:

Compactibility :

Deglaciation:

Effluent :

Esker:

Faulting:

Fluted moraine:

Frost creep:

Frost heave:

the top layer of ground in areas underlain by permafrost that thaws each summer and refreezes each f a l l ,

hard, iner t construction materials such as sand, gravel o r crushed stone.

outwash in the f o m of a number of small knolls that trend along a relatively straight line

the. load per unit area which the ground can safely support without excessive y e i l d .

narrow, man-made embankment.

pattern having interlacing or tangled network of several, small branching and reuniting shallow channels separated by islands and bars.

loose soil and rock fragments deposited chiefly by mass wasting an and at the base of slopes.

property of material that allows it to 3ecrease in volume or thickness under pressure.

the uncovering of land from beneath a glacier by the withdrawal of ice due to shrinkage by melting.

liquid waste which will render groundwater ox surface water supplies unsuitable for human

long, narrow, senuous ridge composed of sand and gravel that was deposited by water in a subglacial or englacial environment.

fracturing and displacement of rock along a surface OK zone.

moraine characterized by parallel, smooth, broad furrows.

s o i l slowly creeping downslope because c:f annual freezing and thawing.

the uneven upward movement of surface soil, rock, vegetation or structures resulting from the subsurface freezing of water and growth of ice masses.

consump t i on

Frost shattering:

Frost so r t ing :

Frost-susceptible s o i l :

Geology :

Glacially oversteepened :

Glaciation:

Glaciolacustrine:

Ground ice:

Hydrogeology :

Ice-cored moraines:

Interglacial:

Lacustrine (deposit):

Liquefaction:

Loess:

Marl :

127

mechanical disintegration of rock due to pressure exerted by freezing of water in cracks and pores.

sorting of unconsolidated material through ice movement as cauaed 5 y freezing and thawing.

soil in which significant detrimental ice farms when the requisite moisture and freezing conditions are present.

the study of the planet Earth; its composing materials; i t s morphology; i t s history; and the forces that are acting upon it,

a valley wall whose slopes have been steepened due to erosive force of a glacier ,

(a) the covering of land by glaciers; (b) a part of geologic time during which

glaciers were more extensive than at present.

pertaining to or deposited in glacial lakes.

ice in pores and other openings in s o i l or rock.

scientific study of the chemistry, supply Dotential and flaw characteristics of water in surficial geological materials and near- surface bedrock.

moraines underlain by solid glacier ice cores.

pertaining to or formed during the time interval between two glaciations.

deposited in a lake.

the sudden large decrease of the shearing resistance of a cohesionless s o i l caused by a shock or strain and associated with sudden, temporary increases in pore fluid pressure.

windblown, homogeneousS commonly nonstratified, unconsolidated silt and fine sand.

a mixture of soft, loose fine-grained s o i l and calcium carbonate deposited in water.'

Mass wastage:

Moraine :

Neoglaciation (Neoglacial) :

Niva t ion :

Nivation terraces:

Nunatak:

Organics :

Outwash:

Peat:

Peatland:

Periglacial processes:

Pemaf ro s t :

Permafrost discontinuous:

Permeability:

Physiography:

128

the process by which the dislodgement and down-slope transport of soil and rock occurs through gravitational stresses primarily.

mound, ridge or distinct accumulation of unsorted unstratified material (till) deposited directly by a glacier.

the readvance of glacier ice and time period (approximately the last 3000 years) during which these readvances occurred.

erosion of soil and rock beneath a snowbank and around its margin, caused mainly by frost action and meltwater transport.

a bench or terrace formed by the process of niva t ion.

an isolated hill o r mountain that projec ts prominantly above the surface of a glacier (past o r present) ,

material composed,of peat or finely decomposed plant and animal remains (muck).

strat,Ffied sand and gravel deposited near the f ron t of a glacier by meltwater streams,

unconsolidated, compressible s o i l consisting of partially decomposed semi-carbonized remains of plants, some animal residues and minor mineral soil.

extensive axeas underlain by peat.

processes occuring in cold regions due tQ frost action.

the thermal condition in s o i l or rock having temperatures below OOC persist over two or more years.

permafrost occuring in some areas beneath the ground surface throughout a regional zone where other areas axe free of permafrost.

the ability of a porous or fractured medium to transmit water.

description of the surface features of the Earth such as water and land bodies.

Pleistocene:

Pollutants:

Polygonal ground:

Pos tg lac i a l :

Quaternary:

Rock glacier:

Seismic activity:

Solifluction:

Strandline:

Stratigraphy:

Subgrade :

Terrain type:

Trafficability:

Themokarst:

129

the part of the Quaternary when glaciers repetitively expanded much beyond their present limits (covering most of Canada) and retracted to near their present posi- tions.

any dissolved chemical or suspended con- taminant which degrades the potability of a water supply.

patterned ground marked by polygon-like arrangements of rock fragments, soil, vegetation or ice-wedge network.

pertaining t o the time interval since the last major glaciation of the Pleistocene (approximately the last 10,000 years) . the period of time encompassing the l a s t two or three million years.

a mass of rock fragments and soil cemented by ice and/or underlain by ice that moves slowly downslope in a manner similar to glacier flow

the peneamena of Earth movements including earth quakes.

slow, viscous downslope movement of water- logged surficial material underlain by frozen ground.

a fomer level at which a body of water meets the land.

the surface immediately below a structure that i s levelled off to receive the foundation of an engineering structure.

a landscape or terrain unit characterized by a unique morphology and underlain by a defined surficial material.

the quality or suitability of a s o i l or a terrain t o permit and support moving vehicles.

the process of di f fe ren t ia l thaw settlement because of the melting of ground ice in an area of permafrost,

130

Thermokars t depressions in the land surface formed depressions : by themnokarst.

Thermokarst lakes: lakes within depressions in the land surface formed by thermokarst

APPENDIX A

Suitability Evaluations of

Terrain Typing

Table 1.4.3.1 Evaluatloa oE Terrafn Type SuStmbllity for h d s i n Haisem Jmct ion Ar ia .

L

F-P

u F-P

FG- F

c

FG

6

FC

FC

FC

F

F

F- FG

G

C

C

P-FC

E

E

c

FG

C

c

G

FG

G

C

C

c

E

G

G

C

G

U

P-F

G

G

c

PG

l;

FG

f

FC

C

G

I:

FG

E

C- FG

FG- F

PC-G

G

G

c C

P-F

P-FG

P-F6

P-F

F-P

P

C

F

P-u

P-F

F-P

F-?

P-F

F-FG

F- FG

P

U

G

P

P-U

P

P-P

G

t

C

G

(i

C

E

C

G

c

C

G

E

G

c

c f

G

G

G

G

C

E

6

FG

F

F

F

F

F

FG

FG

E-PC

PC- F

f l ;

G

G

P-u

P.U

U

C

G

c

F- F f

F- FC

C

G

c

G

6

c

€

E- FC

c

c f

G

G

P

F

P-U

u P-U

FG

C

c

F-P

Ff

G

FG

FG

FG

FG

G

FG

FG

F-FG

ti

f

E

G

E

F-P-rocL fa11

47

e

G

f

G

G

c

C

G

c G

FC-dofiatIan

C

G

I;

FG-liqucf4ction

c FG-llquefacfim FC- l iquefac t ion

FE-liquefaction

Ff-IiqUef8CtiOn

G

c FC-Iiquefmctlon

G

E

G

G

G -

G

G

FG-IIquef~CtIOa

P-rock Em118

FC.lmndrltds

G

c 6

P

U

U

P

FC

G

E

c G

E

c C

c G

c E G

G

c G

G

E G

G

G

c c c

E

G

G

c

c

E

G

G

C

c

E

G

P

P

P

P-F

FC

FO

FC

FG

FC

FG-F

FC

FC-F

FG

G

6

G

F.

c

F

F

P

P

P

P

FC

FG- F

P

FG

FG

FC

FC-F

FG- F

F-FG

FC-F

P

U

P

FG

Fc FC

F

U

u P

F

FG

FG

IC

FC

FC

FG

f

F

FG

FC

F.

b

P

P

F

P

U

P

P

FG

F

P

P

F

F-P

P-F

F

F

P

u u P

P-U

P u

SI

pf.*t

pf .mt,me

pf.wt ,mt

@f,Wt.rnt

pf .It,Ut

w e .It

fl ,.t

fl,.t

ut ,mt .pt

rt.fl

ut. f1

wt.t1

uc.mt

mt,mt

ut ,mt

ut..t,fl

Ut .81

r1 .hr ,=I

51 ,pf .*t

xt,fl

wt.rl

f 1 .X I

Table A.4.3.3 BvalmCion of Trrraln + I P m S u i t a b i l i t ) . for Sewage h g m r and SlniUrr Lamdflllr in U i n e m Juncrion Area

FC- P

P-P

U

F-P

F

E

FC

c FG

FE

E

F

F

FC

G

G

E

P-U

c F-P

FG

FT.

E

E

FC

FI;

FG

FG

FG

c

FG

FG

6- FC

L

F.

P-U

F-P

FC

FG

FC

G

E

E

E

c c

G

c

G

G

E

FG

c- FG

c

G

G

0

c

PG- F

FG- F

F

F

FG- F

F-P

c- Fc

G- PG

F

FG-F

FC- F

FC- F

€-P

F- P

FC- F

FG

P

F.

FG

PC

FG

c

F

F

C

c c

c

c G

G

c

G

G

G

C

G

G

G

G

c.

G

c c

c G

FP

F - P

F-P

F-P

P-P

F

FG

FC

FC

P

I:

t

G

U

u U

FG

FG

G

FG

E

G- Fc

G- IF

E

c

G- FI;

G- FG

F

FIi

I;

G

G

E

E

F-P

F-P

P

P

U

FC- F

c c

FG- F

c

6

FG

. FG

FG

FE

G

FG

FC

FG

f

c G

f

E

P-U-rock f m l l s

c

c c

6

G

G

c c

c

G .

G

F-doflation

E c

G

F C - l i q u e f a c t i o n

G



Fc- l lquefac! ion

FG-I Iquefmct ion

G

G

I C - l i q u e f a c t i o n

E

c

G

F

c

c c

PC-l Iquetrc t iQn

P-U-rock f a l l

G

G

I;

C

P

P

U

E-FG

E

c

f

G

C

G

c

E

G

G

E

G

c c G

G

E

c c c c G

I:

C

I;

G

c c c C-FG

c c 6

G

G

G

u ll

u P-U

F-P

c. FG

C-FG

FG-F

FG-F

FC-P

F

FG-P

F

P

P-u

F

F-P

P-u

C-PG

C-FG

G- FC

G- PC

PC

FC-F

P

F-C

F

F-P

F-P

F-P

FG

P

6-FC

r F

U

P

F-P

F-P

P - P

u U

U

P

€

FG

I;

FG

FE

FC

F

F

F

P

P

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

U

P

P

P

F

P

P

F

F

P

FG

P

F

lJ

P

U

U

U

Table A.L.1.1

FC

F-P

U

F-P

F

G E- FG

c c E

G

F- FC

F-FC

F-FC

E

F.

G

u- P

C

F-P

E - FG

E- FC

E

c E- FG

C-FG

C- FG

E- FG

G - FC

G

G- FG

G- FG

G

G

E

P-u

F-P

E- FC

C- FG

6- PC

G

G

F

c G

E

G

c

G

E

C

FC

C- FG

C-FG

c

G

E

E

F -P

FG- F

F

F

F- FG

F-P

G-FG

C-F6

P-F

FC-P

FC- P

FG- F

F-P

F-P

FE-F

FC

P

G

Ff

FC

FG

G

G

G

E

E

G

c 0

c

G

G

G

c

G

C

C

G

c c C

G

C

G

C

G

F-P

F-P

F-P

F-P

F-P

FG-F

FC

FG

FC

F-P

6

G

c

U

U

U

FG

FG

G

P

FG-F

G-PC

c- PC

G

c E- $E

G- FE

P-F

FE

G

G

D

G

G

P

P

P-U

P-U

U

FG- F

G

C

PC-F

6

D

C

FG- $

FG

FG ,

FFI

FC

FG

F-$6

6

E

c

G P

G P

P-U-rock fall U

E P - P

E FE

C G

C c

G G

G c

C G

C G

G c G FG

G c

F-dsflatiom c C c

G C

c c FG-llquofoction E

G G

FG-llquotmction E

FG E

FG c FG C

G c c c FG E

G E

(i c

E E

c - E

c C

G C

G G-FG

FG-liquefacfioa G

P-U-rack f a l l G

c c G E

G G

I: I:

U

U

U

F-P

PG-F

P

P

P

F

P-F

F

F

F -FG

F -P

F

F-P

P-F

P-F

F-P

F-P

P

P

P

U

P

F-P

F -P

F-P

F-P

F- FC

P - u

F-P

P-u

FG-F

U

U

FE-F

P

P

U

U

U

u P

F

P

P

F

F

P

F

P

F

F

F

F

P

U

P

P P

P

u U

P .

P

P

F

F

F

P

F

P

F

u U

F

U

U

U

m t .br

at,br,51

, s1,br.m br.mt+rl

SI .PC

mt

m t

It

m t

m t

It

Pf

nt,s1

It,ll

m t , h z

l t

at

SI ,111

pf

pr

pf ,me

p t . m t

Pf..t

It

t 1 .mt

FI , m t

"t .fl..t

f 1 , I t

i l , m t

. t , t t

mt .ut

Y t , m t

mt

f I ,"t

m t ,*t

51 , h l , m t

r1,mt

t i .mi

rl ,.t

Table h.L.3.S Lvaluntloa of Terrain Type bultalilitg for Conatruetion nmreriala in Halnea Junction Ilru.

c FG

U-P

E-?

rc -?

c

G- 10

c E-FG

c 6-10

CE-P

"P

PC-F

0

c c I - P

G

G

E

c c

c G

G

G

c

c c c G

G

c c

P

c

G

E

c

c G

E

m-r c 0-10

E-PC

C0-E

m-c PE-c G

PC

PC-c G-VG

c

c-IE 6

G

T-P

PC

P - I

P

P P

FG

ffi

P

F-P

FG-V

F

I -P

PC

PC-?

P

U

E

cc

P

P

IC

G

G

E

n c E

E

c c 6

c c c c c

C

c

G

c c

c E

c - E

I-?%

V - H :

P

P .

I

F-16

IG

C

c

PC

PG

IC

C

P-u

P-u

I - U

G

G

c

n: 0

c c

c-?G

G

E

c ?

PC

E

c

E

G

E

P

P-P

P-U

U

0-P

Fc

c c FG-C

G

G

E

PE c G

PC-6

IC

16

I-?%

6

0

D

c G

?-l.nd.li& rockfall

a G

G

E

c G

G

E

c c G

E

c c G

6

E

c 6

G

E

c c F-l iqtutaction

G

G

G

E

C

c G

G

Fc-rockfatl

IC-lmdrlida

G

G

G

P

P-P

u-P

P-F

F

G

c E

6

c E

c c

G

C

c c 6

c c c c 0

G

G

c c c G

G

E

E c

c c G

E

c G

E

U

U

U

P

P-?

f

P

I P

P-r

?G-r c-P

r PG

m

IC-C

FC-F

G -FG

P P

P

P

u u-P

E-PC

IC-P

P FC-P

FG4

P-Fo

F

C

P-P

P-P

P-U

P

F-P

FG

PG

c- I C

u U

ll

P

?

C

J

P

P

F

m P

F

10

FG

m FG

F

P

P

P

U

U

u P

P

r P

P

F

P

I

P

F

U

P

P

P

P

P

st. b r

st, br

It, br. m l

m t . br . mt

mt

mt

Et

.t

Ut

mt

pf ut

m t . I t

mc, a1

mt

mt

if

a1

pc mt ut

mt pf

pf I t ut

p f It ut

pf It

mt ut

f l

I1 mc

vt at fl

Y t €1

f l ut

Y t f l ut

mt w t

it

ut

m t ut

ut I C

mi m t

p i m t

I1 I t

fl ut

f l

Terrain Factors : G - Good, FG - Fairly Good, F - Fair (marcinal) ,P - Poor. u - l lnsu i tab le (very poor), 1 . A . - Individual Assessment preferrable.

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock tlateriafs; Terra in Symbol and Special S Lope Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth Stoniness Unit L i n r i t ing Conditions (SI) (wt) ( f l ) (PO (hz 1 (br ) (mt) Rating Factors

Table h . 5 . 3 . 2 Evaluation of Terrain Type Suitabiltty for Buildings i n Destruction Bay Area

Terrain Factors : G - Good, FG - F a i r l y Good, F - Fair (marainaf) ,p - Poor. - Unsui tab le (very poor), I . A . - Individual Assessment p r e f e r r a b l e .

Terrafn Unit Flood Permafrost Symbol and Special S l o p e Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth Stoniness Conditions (SI) t w t 1 (fl) (pf ) (hz) ( b r ) (mt)

Bedrock Materials ; Terrain Unit L in1 i L i r q , Rating Factors

I;- I’G I;

G 1’

I G

r’ - H

1 I .I

I

r3 0

h

T

E: m

c

m

rl

PI M

d

m 1 u PI

WW

a

e

I

Table A . 5 . 3 . 4 Evaluation of Terrain Type Sui tab i l i ty for Septic Systems in Destruction Bay Area

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FG - Fairly Good, F - Fair (marcinal).P - Poor, U - Unsuitable (very poor), I . A . - Ind iv idua l Assessment preferrable.

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock Materials; Terra in Symbol and Special S l o e Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth S tonines s Unit L i n l i t in& Conditions (ut 1 ( f 1) (pf ) (hz 1 0 x 1 Cat) Rating Factors (sly

FC- F

FG- F

FG- F

G- FG

G

G

G

G

G

G

c;

G

FG

G - FI;

G

G- FG

G- FG

FG

FG

FG- F

G

G

F

F

F

F- P

FC

F

G- FG

G

P

G

G

I;

G

G

P-u

F

F

F - FI;

F - FG

G- FG

G

FG

c- FI;

I;

P - U

P

P

P

P- F

P - F

G

. FG

F- P

U

u U

P-U

P-I:

F - P

F - P

I;

FG

G

G

G

c;

r,

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

I;

I;

P- 1 ique l a c t ion

G

F - P

F - P

F G - F

FG-F

P-I:

P - F

F - P

P - F

F - FG

F - P

F - P

P

F - P

F G - P

F - P

P - F

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

U

u U

P

P

F

F

11

P

l a b l e h.5. 3.5 Evaluat ion of Terrain Type Su i tab i l i ty for Construct ion Naterials in UestrucLion Day Area.

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FI: - F a i r l y Good, F - Fair (nlarrinaL),P - Poor, u - l lnsu i tah le (very poor), I . A . - Indiv idual Assessment preferrable .

Terra in Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock M a t e r i a l s ; Terrain Symbol and Special Slope Drainage Hazard and I c e llazards Depth Stoniness Unit L i m i t inb Conditions Is11 (wt 1 (€1) (Ff 1 fhz) (br) (mt) Rating Factors

FC

rr: FC: -G

F

c r- F

P-F

P-F

P

F-FC:

F-P

I:

c

r

L:

F

F

F-FG

FC-F

FG

FG

FG-F

li

u U

P-U

F-P

F-FI:

F- FG

P

1°C; - G

1 1 I I I /I I I B

NN

rn

C

=- LI

u1 a LraJ lL

lu al

ah

r

ly

l

Or

(

VJ-

c

Table A . h . 3 . 3

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FG - F a i r l y Good, F - F a i r (marninal),P - Poor. u - Unsuitable (very poor), I . A . - IndivLdual Assessment preferrable.

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Symbol and Special Slope Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Conditions (SI) ( w t 1 (f 1) ( p f ) (hz 1

Bedrock t,lateriaLs ; Terrain Depth S t o n i n e s s Unit L i m i t in&, (br 1 (mt) Rating Factors

Terra in Factors: G - Good, FG - F a i r l y Good, F - Fair (marginal) .P - foor. u - Unsui tab le (very poor), I .A. - Indiv idual Assessment preferrable .

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Symbol and Special Slope Drainage Hazard and Ice ltazards Condit ions (SI) ( w t 1 (€1) f p f ) (hz)

Bedrock Mater ia l s ; Terrain Depth S t o n i n e s s Unit Limi t in& W 1 (mt 1 Rating Factors

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FG - F a i r l y Good, F - Fair (marEinal),P - Poor. LI - Unsuitable (very poor), I.A. - Individual Assessment preferrabie.

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock t,laterials; Terrain Symbol and Special Slope Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth Stoniness Unit L i m i tinL Conditions (SI) I w t 1 I f l ) ( P f ) (hz) ( t r 1 (mt 1 Rating Factors

Evaluation of Terrain Type Suitability for Roads i ~ l Champay,ne Area .

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FG - Fairly Good, F - Fair (marninal).P - Poor. u - Unsuitable (very poor), I .A, - Individual Assessment preferrable. Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock Materials; Symbol and Specfal S lope Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth S tonines s Condi rions (SI) (wt 1 ( f l ) (Pf) (hz) (br) (mt) Rating Factors

Terrain Unit Limit int;

FG-F

G

F-P

C-FC

G -FG

G- FG

G-FC:

c: G

G

G

FG

G

G

FG

G

FG

FC:

P

P - F

G

FG

G

FG

FC-F

FG

G

G

FG-F

6-FG.

F-deflation blow-outs

FC-liquefaction

PG-deflation

FG-deflation blow-outs

FG-liquefaction

FC-liquefaction

F-deflation

c. F-liquefaction

F-liqucfaction

G

G

c: G

c c G

G

G

c:

FG-F

P

FC

F-FG

F

F -FG

FG-G

FG-G

F-P

F

T a b l e A . 7 . 3 . 2 Evaluation of Terrain Tvpe Suitability for DuiIdinp,s in Champagne A r e a .

Terrain Factors: C: - Good, FG - Fairly Good. F - Fair (marninal~.P - Poor. u - Unsuitable (very poor), I.A. - Individual Assessment preferrable.

Terrain Pnit Flood Permafrost Bedrock Materials; Terrain Symbol and Special S l o e Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth Stoniness Unit L i a i t i n l

(sly Conditions ( w t 1 (f 1) (Pf) (hz) (tr) ( m t ) Rating Factors

FG-F

c:

F-P

I: -FI:

<; -FG

c- FC

G-FG

G

c:

r.

G

FC

G

G

FG

G

FG

FC:

P

F-P

c

FC

G

FG

FC- F

G

c: G

FG-F

I:

F-deflation bloi?-outs

FG-liquefaction

FG-deflation

F-def lation hloW-OutS

FG-liquefaction

FC-liquefaction

F-deflation

c: F-1iqueEaction

F-liquefaction

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

(:

FG - F

FG- F

G

FG-G

FG -F

FG

FG -G

FG

F-P

F

F

FG

F

F

E’G

FG

F

FG

P

u

Terrain Factors: C - Good, FG - Fafrly Good, F - Fair (rnarpina11,P - Poor. u - Unsuitable (very poor), I . A . - IndivLdual Assessment preferrable.

Terrain Unit Flood Permafrost Bedrock Haterfals; Terrain Symbol and Special Slope Drainage Hazard and Ice Hazards Depth Stoniness Unit L i m i t in& Conditions (all (wt 1 (fl) ( p f ) (hz) (br) fmt 1 Rating Factors

F

c:

P-LI

G-FI:

G-FG

G-FC

O-FG

G

G

c:

c:

FG

G

G

FG

G

FG

FG

P

F-P

G

FC:

G

FG

FG-F

G

I:

c: FG-F

G

F-deflation blow-outs

FG-liquefaction

FG-deflation

FG-deflation blow-outs

FG-liquefaction

FG-Liquefaction

FC-def lation

c:

FG-liquefaction

FG-Liquefaction

G

e

G

I:

c: G

G

c G

G

F-P

FG

P-F

F-P

F

F-P

P-F

P-F

F

F

P

FC

P

F

F

P

P

P

P

U

m t

Wt pi t l l t

sl l l l t

nl t

mt

nl t

m t

111 t

wt m t

€1 wt l l l t

e

m

h

d

aJ m

b

I

Table A . 7 . 3 . 5 Evaluation o f Terrain Tvpe S u i t a b i l i t y for Construct ion Hattr ia ls in Champagne hrca. ,

Terrain Factors: G - Good, FG - Fairly Good, F - Fair b a r K i n a l ) , P - Poor. u - unsuftahle (very poor), I . A . - Individual Assessment p r e f e r r a b l e .

Terrain Unit Flood Pemef rost Bedrock Hater ia ls ; Symbol and Specis1 Slope Drainage Hazard and ICE Ilazards Gepth S t o n i n e s s Unit Condit ions (SI) (wt 1 (f 1) ( P f ) (hz) (In- 1 ( m t )

Terrain

Rating Factors L i n l i t i n L

c:

FC

t:

FG

G

FG

c: G

FG

G

F-deflation

FG-liquefaction

c FG-deflation

FG-liquefaction

FG-liquefaction

FC-liquefaction

t:

FG-liquefaction

rc- l iquefact fon

c,

G

G

G

G

G

G

6

c

G

F

P

G

F-P

P

F-P

F

F

u-P

P

APPENDIX B

Grain Size Analysis

I 3. 8. p a i m & &150CULtE5 L'td. CONSULTINO AND TESflNG ENGINEERS

PROJECT 'Yukon ' CLIENT Terrain Analysis &

Oct, I79 JRP FILE:y-1898 9MPI.E TYPE DEPTH LAB NO. HOLE NQ FIELD NO.

SY 7 31

LABORATORY TESTING REPORT

PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS RWWO 1

1 I

JRP Y P T H I""' I) sy a4 FIELD NO.


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS I 1

I MRTERIAL trpE I I

1 r

I

PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS nouwa I sum - RWNO

"

.ABORATORY'S REMARKS -

LIENT Terrain Analys is & WrE Oct . /79


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS I

MATERIAL TYPE */e DF TOTAL SAMRE

-. - 1 I I

4 b9.9 1 1 I I

PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS

SUO -A- I


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

MATERIAL TYPE OF TOTAL SAMPLE

PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS c -0 “RWMD

AWOWCAII

SUI - A M o 1 1 u

ABORATCRY‘S REMARKS

- Washed Sieve.

I

'Yukon ' CLIENT Terrain Analysis & DATE RECQRED O c t . / 7 9

JRP FILE:Y-1S98 SPMPI-E TYPE OEPTH HOLE NQ ' FIELD NO. LAB NO. SY 6 34


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

]Sandy Clayey S d l t I I I I I I I

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

MATERIAL rypE */o OF TOTAL SAMPLE

.. . . . . . . .

1

I I PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS

1 sum - ROUND

0 0 N

ABORATORY'S REMARKS - Washedsieve. DATE SIUIPLEX)

DATE RECEIVED / 7 9

3" dy. palm & Gq55ocULtri f'd. CONSULTlNQ AND TESTING ENGINEERS

mOJECT 'Yukon' CLIENT Terrain Analysis &

ocr / 7 9

JRP FILE:Y-1898 SAMPLE TYPE OEPT H LAB NO. FIELD NO. HOLE No ' 28 SY 8



. . T - r 7- .

MATERIAL TYPE

PARTICLE SHAFT ANALYSIS

.hBORATORY'S REMARKS DATE S M P L m - 4 i PVP WTE RECEIVED Aug*

T€CHNICIAN(S)

CHECKED BY



A ~ O R A T O R Y 'S REMARKS - Dry Sieve. DATE SRMPCED MTE RECEIVED Aug

CHECKED EY

TEMNlClAN(S) ' Is

I -

L



1 1100 I 40 117.0

IGravelly Sand I

1

I

1

PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS rrWMD

SUVI-RWWD

A.IIOUcIII

SUI - AM-

ABORATORY'S REMARKS DATE SAMPcm -. S i P V P . MTE RECflMD Aug* /79

fEMNtCIAN(S1 Is & Is CHECKED av

- , 2. J"'. painr 5 ~ 1 1 0 C i c l L E ~ f'd CONSULTlNO AND TESTING ENGINEERS

-0JECT 'Yukon' CLIENT Terrain A n a l y s i s & ADRED

" Oct.179 JRP FILE: LAB NO. FIELD NO. HoLE NQ %MR.f TYPE OEPTH

Y-1898 ' il3 SY 78

LABORATORY TESTING REPORT .

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANAlYStS I I

PARTIUE SHAPE ANALYSIS

2 8. P a h E ,5 U455OCiLLtE5 LU. CONSULTINO AND TESTNG ENGINEERS

PROJECT 'Yukon' ZLIENT Terrain Analysis &

M-n P Oct. /79 JRP FILE:y-1898 LAB NO. F E U ) NO. HOLE NQ DEPTH SAMPLE TYPE ' 11 2 SY 95


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I


MATERIAL lYP€ O/o OF TOTAL SAMPLE

I

PARTICE $HAP€ ANALYSIS

,ABORATORY'S REMARKS OATE SAMW I v SiPve. WTE RECEIVED Aug ' /''



I Gravelly Sand.] I I I I I I

I MAYERIAL lYPE

' I DAE S A M R E D

M T E RECEIVED Aug. 179 I

C O N S U L T l ~ AND TESTING ENGINEERS PROJECT '-lXO 2LIENT Terrain Analysis &

'Yukon' Oct 1 7 9 JRP FILE:Y-1S98 LAJ6N0.

HOlE NQ W A R E TYPE DEPTH


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

. .. . - . - .. - - .. . . . . ..


,

.ABORATORY'S REMARKS - Dry Sieve. TECHNlClAN(SI -7 Is & Is CHECKED BY

3. &. Palm G &55ocicrte5 L'd. CONSULTINO AND TESTING ENGINEERS

PROJECT 'Yukon ' ZLIENT Terrain Analys i s & RECORDED

Oct . / 7 9 JRP FILE:Y-1898 LAB NO. FIEU) NO. HOLE NQ DEPTH SaMPI-E TYPE

' a 2 3 57 PY



Gravelly Sand I

I

i

ABORATORY'S REMARKS - Dry Sieve.

. . ~ ... . . . . . - 2. 8. Pain5 G UqllociCLtel f%l.

COHSULTINQ AND TESTlNQ ENGINEERS PROJECT

'Yukon CLIENT Terrain A n a l y s i s & 'EWRCuZD

b w f ocr. /79 JRP LA0 NO. FIELD NO. HOLE, NQ DEPTH SPh4R.E TYPE

' 29 SY 39



Dia. Dia. n m

r2W mm r m

10 79.2 060 60.4 ,005 9.0 20 73.0 044 53.5

W C M SltL w*m '/a Cf TOTAL = W E

inn 40 e 2 033 4 4 . 7

.ABORATORY'S REMARKS - shed S m .

L


ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

MATERIAL TYPE

1

036 15.01 026 13.5 018 10.8 013 8 . 6

007 5.5

.

009 7 . 5 I 1 1 I 1 1 I

t 1 I PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS

I 1

I C 1

ABORATORY'S REMARKS W E SAMPLExl


GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS r

MAYERIAL rypE '/o OF YDTAL S A W E w

, PARTICLE SHAPE ANALYSIS r

I"" 9 P a l m G c+imciate5 L'd COHIiULTlMQ AMD TESTlHO ENGINEERS

#QJECT 'Yukon' CLIENT Terrain Analysis & Rm

O c t * 179 JRP FILE:Y-1898 S4MPI.E TYPE FIELD NO. HQE No E P T H

' 100 PY 819 LAB NO.



iBOR4TORY'S REMARKS - Dry Sieve.

. . . . . . . . . . .

".. .__ .......

1

geologic and hydrogeologic interpretations of wines ...pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/gran/38343.pdf ·...

Documents