AN EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITYOF DEVELOPING GRANULAR BORROW FROM THE BED OF THE MACKENZIE

Submitted to: INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS CANADA

Prepared by: EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD. CALGARY,

0301-34288 APRIL, 1987 0301-34288

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

1.o INTRODUCTION 1

2 .o PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2

3 .O NORMAN WELLSEXPANSION PROJECT 3 3.1 RIVERREGIME 3 3.2 ESSO ' S DREDGED GRAVEL 4 3.3 SOURCE OF BORROW 5 3.3.1 Quaternary 6 3.3.2 Recent A1 1 uviurn 7 3.4 BORROW EXPLORATION a 3.4.1 Sampling Methods 8 3.4.2 Geophysical Methods 10

4 .O GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK - MACKENZIERIVER 11 4.1 RIVERZONES 11 4.2 MORPHOLOGICPROPERTIES OF THE RIVER 11 4.2.1 Pattern 12 4.2.2 Islands 13 4.2.3 Channel CrossSection 13 4.3 VARIABLESAFFECTING RIVER REGIME 14 4.3.1 Channel Gradient 14 0301-34288 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

4.3.2 SedimentType and Quantity 15 4.3.3 16 4.4 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND REGIONALGEOLOGY 16 4.4.1 Great Slave Plain (River Zones I to VI11 17 4.4.2 Mackenzi e P1ai n (River Zones VI11 - XIII) 17 4.4.3 Frankl in Mountai ns-Mackenzi e P1 ain (River Zone XIV) 19 4.4.4 PeelPlain-Anderson Plain (River Zones XV - XIX) 20

5 .O ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 23 5.1 UPLANDGRANULAR RESOURCES DATA 23 5.2 GRANULAR RESOURCES DEMAND INFORMATION 24 5.2.1 Local Community Requirements 24 5.2.2 Highway Requi rements 24 5.2.3 Airport Requirements 25 5.2.4 PipelineRequirements 26 5.2.5 PotentialBorrow Demand 27 5.3 BORROW DEVELOPMENT COSTS 27 5.3.1 Up1 and Deposits 27 5.3.2 Riverbed Deposits 30 0301-34288 Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

6 .O ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATIONS 33 6.1 HYDROLOGY 33 6.1.1 Hydro1 ogi c Regime 33 6.1.2 Suspended 34 6.1.3 Ri ver Morpho1 ogy 35 6.1.4 Hydrology Concerns Related to GranularMaterials Removal 37 6.2 WATER QUALITY 39 6.2.1 General Concerns 39 6.2.2 Hydrocarbons 40 6.2.3 TraceMetals 41 6.3 FISHERIES 42 6.3.1 DataBase 42 6.3.2 SpeciesPresent 43 6.3.3 Seasonal LifePatterns 44 6.3.4 Resource Harvesting 47 6.3.5 Habitat Uses 49 6.4 FISHERIESCONCERNS RELATED TO GRANULAR MATERIALS REMOVAL 50 6.4.1 PotentialSources of Disturbance 51 6.4.2 Suspended Sediments and Sedimentation 51 6.4.3 Resuspension of ContaminatedSediments 54 6.4.4 A1 teration of Habitat Characteristics 54 6.4.5 Interference With Mi gration/Spawni ng 55 6.4.6 Decreased Fi shi ng Success 55 6.4.7 Mortal i ty From Dredging Machinery 56 0301-34288 Page 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

7 .O FEASIBILITY OF RIVERBED BORROW DEVELOPMENT 57 7.1 LIMITED DATA BASE 57 7.2 RATING THE RIVER 57 7.3 POTENTIAL AREAS FOR RIVERBED BORROW DEVELOPMENT 58

8 .O RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION WORK 59 8.1 RIVERBED INVENTORY 59 8.2 NORMANWELLS FIELD TRIALS 61 8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS 62 8.3.1 Water Quali ty 62 8.3.2 Hydro1 ogy 62 8.3.3 Fi sheri es 63

9 .o CLOSURE 64

REFERENCES

TABLES FIGURES DRAWINGS

APPENDIX A - Hydrology And SedimentCharacteristics Of Mainstem Reaches APPENDIX B - Summary Of FisheriesInformation For ReachZones APPENDIX C - Acknowledgements 0301-34288

~ ~~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On behalf of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, a review has been completed of thefeasibi 1 i ty of developing granular material s from the Mackenzie Riverbed for use as construction borrow. The project was completed for Supply and Services Canada by EBA EngineeringConsultants Ltd. who had submitted an unsolicited proposal forthe work. EBA were assisted by ESL Environmental Sciences Ltd. and GVM GeologicalConsultants Ltd. in theoffice study. River regime data, primarily channel morphologyand rivergradient/ data werecombined with geological and terrain evidence of granular alluvium to develop a rating system for 25 km reaches of theriver. Approximately 22 percent of theriverbed was interpretedto have a high potential to supplygranular borrow. The area betweenCamsell Bend and Fort Good Hope appears to have thegreatest potential; however, local areas between Fort Providence and Fort Simpsonhave a moderate to high potenti a1 . To develop an understanding of where riverbed borrow production might be required,data pertaining to upl and or conventional borrow deposits within 15 km of theriverbank was reviewed. Almost 66 percent of thelength of the Mackenzie Valleyappears to be deficient in upland borrow resources. In particular,the 500 km section upstream of Will owl ake River and the 175 km section immediatelyupstream of the Mackenzie Delta have noticeable shortages of upland granularresources. A cost comparison of conventionalversus dredge and barge haul borrow development demonstrated the economic feasi bi 1 i ty of ri veri ne borrow production. Although excavation and start-upcosts would morebe than twiceas high ($11.90/m3 versus $4.90/rn3) for dredge and barge methods, haul costs would be considerablyless for longerdistances. Evidence is presentedsuggesting that for hauls of greater than 7 km, riveroperations may morebe practical. For high production rates,the potential cost benefitsare even greater. Environmental considerationsprimarily focused on thefish population and the impact of dredging on waterquality and suspended sediments. Generally it was concluded thatthe 'snaturally high flow rate and high suspended sedimentcontent during the open waterseason will maskany effects summer dredging might have. Similarlyresuspension of sorbed heavy metals and hydrocarbons is not expected to be a major concern. Some concern does exist, however, for theinterference dredging may have on the migration of fish alongthe Mackenzie and spawning areas could be impacted. Therefore sitespecific evaluation will be required before major borrow operationsare initiated. The shortage of data uponwhich to base this studyaffected both the geotechnical and environmental components. Sitespecific information of theriverbed materials and fishpopulations is virtuallynon-existent, except for the Norman Wells area and tributarystreams and . Therefore,considerable effort will be requiredbefore the potential value of theriverbed a1 luvium as a resourcematerial canbe established. 0301-34288 Page 1

1.o INTRODUCTION

In September1986, Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada (INAC)through Supplyand Services Canada (SSC) retained EBA EngineeringConsultants Ltd. (EBA) toevaluate the feasibility of recovering granular borrow resources fromthe main channel of theMackenzie River. This project which was awardedas a resultof an unsolicitedproposal was conductedunder SSC Contract No. A7134-6-0017/01-ST. Mr. BobGowan was INAC'S Scientific Authorityfor the project.

Inthe mid '70'5, therewere several studies ofthe granular borrow prospects inthe MackenzieValley, excluding the river. Indian Affairs andNorthern Devel oprnent sponsored a broadinventory of the Val 1 ey 's resourcesincluding studies by EBA (1973), Pemcan (19721,and the GeologicalSurvey of Canada (1972,1973). Subsequently studies for a MackenzieValley gas pipeline andthe Mackenzie and Dempster highways examinedgranular borrow supplies in more detail,but along much narrower corridors. None ofthese studies appears to have considered the riverbed as a potentialsource ofgranular borrow. The conceptofrecovering borrowmaterials from the riverbed was, atthat time, considered to be environmental ly unacceptable.

Geotechnicalinvestigations for the Norman WellsExpansion Project (NWEP) completedbetween 1978 and 1983 by ESSO Resources Canada Ltd. (ESSO f encounteredsignificant thicknesses of granular riverbed alluvium. ESSO recognizedthe economic value of this material inpart because ofits experiencewith constructing islands by dredging.Almost 1.8 million cu.m. ofriverbed sandand gravel was used forconstruction of sixislands in the river by the NWEP.

On thebasis of ESSO's successfuldevelopment of granular borrow resources fromthe riverbed and with the knowledge that some sectionsof the river 0301-34288 Page 2

Val leyare deficient in up1and granular borrow resources, it was appropriateto investigate the potential for other reaches of the river to supplygranular borrow. The projectcan best be described as a studyof thepotential for finding granular resources along separate reaches of the river and of thefeasibility for developing suchdeposits if they do exist.Environmental, andeconomic factors havebeen included in assessing the general feasi bi 1 ity of riverbed borrow development.

2 .o PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The studyarea was restrictedto the main river channeland didnot considerthe and rivers except as sedimentsources. The upstreamend ofthe study was atGreat Slave Lake (km 0.0 onthe hydrographic(navigation) charts). The downstreamend was atPoint Separation (km 1475 where theMackenzi e Deltabegins.

The basicobjective of the study was toidentify where thedevelopment of riverbedalluvium as a source of granularborrow materials would be feasible. The primaryquestions to answer were: a)where do geologicand hydrologic evidence suggest that coarse granular a1 luvium will befound in the riverbed? b)where might these deposits satisfy local shortages inconventional (up1 and) borrow materi a1 suppl ies? c) how do the economics ofdredging and transportingriverbed a1 1 uvium compare with conventi onal borrow pit development? d)what environmental constraints might affect riverbed dredging?

A rating system was developedcombining geologic and hydrologic data in orderto identify the potential for granular material in various parts of 0301-34288 Page 3

theriver. In addition,theavailable upland borrow resources were identified for variousparts of theriver.

Another major component of theoverall study was a review of theriverbed borrow development undertaken forthe Norman Wells Expansion Project. The informationacquired prior to and duringthe NWEP is by far the most detailedavailable assessment of any part of theriverbed and theeffects of dredging on the Mackenzie River.

The finalrequirement of this study was to out1 inesubsequent work needed to develop an inventory of riverbed granular resources.Suggestions for both geotechnical and environmental fieldstudies are provided.

3 .O NORMAN WELLS EXPANSIONPROJECT

3.1 RIVER REGIME

The channel in the middle part of the Mackenzie River is described by Northwest Hydraul ics (1979) asbeing irregul ar and sl i ghtlysinuous. It ischaracterized by a1 ternations of single-channelreaches with much wider mul ti-channelreaches, divided by is1ands. The Norman Wells area is typical of themulti-channelled reaches. Northwest Hydraulics (1979) interpretsthat the Mackenzie is somewhat oversized and thatthe islanded reachesare even more oversizedthan the general case in terms of cross-sectionalarea for the present flow. Two possibleexplanations are given for this. These are:

i the dominant flow that shapes theriver occurs when the channel is partial ly blocked by ice, or ii ) the channel was formed by larger flows in thepast and it has not reached equili brium for present flow rates 0301-34288 Page 4

In evaluatingthese a1 ternatives Northwest Hydraulics (1979) noted that there is little direct evidence thatice jamsand theflooding at break-up constitutes an important part inthe shaping of theriver. There are no scourholes associated with ice damming and rapid shifts of theriver are not common. Therefore, it was concluded that the Norman Wells reach appearslikely to beone of sedimentaccumulation and slowly rising bed levels.

The riverbedalluvium therefore should be representative of the present bedl oad rather than some previous(post-g1 acial ? 1 depositional environment. ESSO's dataclearly shows that along the main channel,the alluviumconsists of sandy finegravel. The source of thisgravelly alluviumcould be from the numerous tributaryrivers which enterthe Mackenzie upstream ofNorman Wells. Analysissuggests that a substantial local reach of theriver, extending from theGreat Bear Riveralmost to Sans Saul t , may have a similar bedl oad.

3.2 ESSO ' S DREDGED GRAVEL

As part of the Norman We1 1 s Oi lfiel d Expansion project, ESSO dredged approximately 174,000 m3 for each of sixislands, 114,000 m3 for pads and roads and 400,000 m3 for pipe1 i ne trench fi11. In total, approximately 1,800,000 m3 of river borrow was anticipated in ESSO's dredgingpermit application ESSO, 1982). An allowance of approximately 15 percent was i nc 1 uded for losses during construction.

ESSO ' s dredg i ng permit a1 lowed forthe recovery of granular borrow from theslopes of the main channel adjacent to theisland sites but not inthe shallow, flatareas nearer the islands because of the risk to fishhabitat (S. Hunter,personal communications). The dredge areas were typically between100 and 150 m from theis1 ands depending on thefloating pipeline 0301-34288 Page 5

and theriver currents. Figure 3.1 showswhere dredging is believed to have occurred. The actual dredge areas were selectedfor convenience rather than on thebasis ofsome previouslyidentified preferred location. This impliesthat ESSO was able to find, within theconstruction area, useable borrow whereverthey required it.

Figure 3.2 shows a composite gradationcurve for 27 samples of dredged borrow that was used forisland fill. These samples were taken from the above-water part of theislands. They thereforerepresent an 'as-dredged' evaluation of the borrow in contrast to thegradation that wouldbe determined from borehole samples. The borrow would be classifiedas a sandy gravel to a gravelly sand with a topsize of at least 150 mm (6 inches 1 and a fines(si1 t and clay)content of less than 5 percent. Although on some individualgradation curves gap grading of the borrow is indicated,this is interpreted to be theresults of gradation separation during the placement of materi a1 s. General ly the rnateri a1 is we1 1 -graded (to an engineer, and poorlygraded to a geologist).

3.3 SOURCE OF BORROW

Very little has been reported on thenature and origin of thegravelly alluvial sediments at Norman Wells. However, thereis more information resulting from the Norman Wells Expansion Project than for almost any otherlocation on theriver.

The followingdescription of thesurficial geology hasbeen taken from Komex ( 1980). 0301-34288 Page 6

3.3.1 QuaternaryGeology

The Quaternaryhistory of the Mackenzie Val ley in the vicinity of Norman We1 1s describedis Mackayby andMathews (1973).During the last (Wisconsin)glaciation, glaciers advanced northward along the Mackenzie ,removing interglacial soil and leaving a veneer ofglacial til 1. A second icelobe moved westwardthrough the area of Fort Good Hope. Whilethe ice front through Fort GoodHope dammed thevalley's natural drainage,recession of theMackenzie Valley ice lobe caused the formation of a smal 1 proglacial lake having a maximum elevationof about 240 m (790feet). Recession of theFort GoodHope icelobe extended this lake into the Ramparts Riverlow1 and, eventually a1 lowingdrainage over the Ontaratue-Rampartdivide about 11,000 years B.P. The lakeelevation at thisstage was reducedto about 95 m (310feet). (Mean waterlevel at the Norman We1 Is dock is approximately 39.5 m).

Exi sting beach 1i nes and si1 ty clay encountered in exploratory we1 1 s in the NormanWells area indicate that theupper level the of (glaciolacustrine)deposit was likelyabout 70 m (230feet) (Hughes,1970; Kurfurst, 1973; Isaacs,1974).

TWO majorspillways formed inthe divide near Fort Good Hope. The higher ofthe two, theFossil Lake spillway at 65 m (215 feet), was abandoned about 6,000 years B.P. Downcuttingcontinued through the Upper Ramparts toform the present Mackenzie river channel and valley.

Inrecent times, the Mackenzie River has cut through the lacustrine clay deposits , whichhave beenremoved tovarying degrees along the north (right) .The clay has apparently beeneroded completely from the areaof the (NWEP) Fieldgateand Settling .However, Isaacs(1974) reportsthat gl aciolacustrine clay is found further downstream of these sites on thenorth (right) bankof theMackenzie. Following of 0301-34288 Page 7

theclay, an alluvialflood plain developed alongthe north (right) bank of the Mackenzie River andformed a1 luvialdeposits of clayey si 1 t and siltyclay, with traces of sand and gravel. In addition, alluvial deposits of si1 t and fine sand haveformed a series of islandsin the Mackenzie River,including Bear and Goose Islands. The alluvialdeposits inthe riverbed range from si1ty fine sands to gravel s, and over1 iethe gl aci ol acustrine cl ay.

3.3.2 Recent A1 1uvi um

From thepreceedi ng description, it appears that thegravel and sand that ESSO dredgedcomprises recent a1 luvial sediments.Figures 3.3 and 3.4 provideshort cross-sections compiled from boreholes by EBA (1978). The approximate location of thesesections is shown on Figure 3.1. They indicate that therecent alluvium is approximately 2 to 3 m thick above theglaciolacustrine clay.

The a1 luvium is probably highly mobile. Navigation chartsprepared by the Canadian Hydrographic Service show that during thenavigation season the river flows at about 3.5 knots(1.8 m/sec. at Norman Wells. Seasonally this wi 11 vary and it is not clear whether thereported velocity is a maximum or an average.This velocityis sufficient to move particles to 7 mn diameter by bedload transport (Church and Gilbert, 1975). At break-up, theriver level may rise and fa1 1 more than 4 m during which currentvelocities of as much as 2.05 m/sec. arepossible. This would move gravel up to 10 - 12 mm ie:fine gravel(Northwest Hydraulics, 1979). Therefore with some degree of confidence, it ispossible to interpret that most of thegranular material is part of theactive, contemporarybedload alluvium. The distribution of similarconditions can be reasonablyexpected to extend downstream to at least Sans Saul t Rapids 0301-34288 Page 8

and upstream to Fort Norman (River ZonesXI11 to XV describedin Section 4.0 of this report).

Northwest HydraulicConsultants Ltd. (1979) suggests that deposits of coarser gravel and cobblesare 1i kely to have originated frorn inflows of higher energy tributarystreams, from localerosion of coarserdeposits in banks or from icerafting. In the deeper portions of theriver, however, active bedload transport of sand and fine gravelprobably occurs under mostopen water conditions.

3.4 BORROW EXPLORATION

3.4.1 Sampling Methods

When ESSO planned the NWEP riverconstruction, theyconducted, through geotechnicalconsul tants, severalriverbed sampl i ng programs. Subsequentlythey developed designs forthe islands based on the use of sand for borrow. Theirdata suggested that they wouldhave to be selective of the borrow because the a1 1uvium was quitesi 1ty in places. It was only when the dredging actually commenced, did it become apparent that thequality ofborrow was much better. This is pointed out, not to be critical of ESSO or theirconsultants (which included EBA) , but to demonstratethe 1 imitations of the sampling proceduresthey employed.

In EBA's 1978 program andKomex's 1981 and 1982 programs for ESSO at Norman We1 1 s, a 8-40 holl ow stem augerdri 11 was used to test the borrow prospects. In 1980, the Komex-Geocon program re1 ied on a diamond dri 11 to advance casing. With either rig, sampling was achieved by driving a 381 nun spl it-spoon sampler. 0301-34288 Page 9

Split-spoon sampling is not totallyrepresentative, because it is intermittent and 1 imi ted to material that willenter the sampler. Generallythe 45.7 cm sampler is dri ven at 45.7 m interval s to sample about 50 percent of thematerial penetrated. However, in gravellysoils recovery is poor because largegravel blocks the sampler or the non-cohesive soil slips(washes) out asthe sampler is withdrawn through thecasing. Recovery therefore depends on therelative density of the non-cohesivesediment and on thetopsize of thesediments. Figure 3.2 suggests that at Norman Wells, up to 30 percent of theparticles would havebeen toolarge to be sampled.

Itis believed that the sampling program conducted for ESSO indicated silty sand and notthe sandy gravel that was eventuallydredged, because thespl i t-spoonsampler willrecover most si1ty sediments and lose most cleansediments. Also it will not recovergravel representativein proportions.

In EBA (1978)these sampl ing limitations were noted with thefollowing comments.'Very few texturally-representative samples of sand or silt were takenas a result of foreseeabledifficulties that were encountered in retainingloose, cohesionless soils below waterlevel. Judging from dri 11 action observed whilepenetrating the surf ici a1 sands and gravel s, it is thought that theactual gravel content is substantially higher than the grain size curves (EBA, 1978) would suggest. Both standard and dynamic cone penetrationresistance varied considerably within this (riverbedalluvium) stratum probably as a directresult of thesignificant gravelcontent'. This report indicated that cobbles and boulders were a1 so suspected.

Komex (1980)noted thepresence of cobbles and boulders was inferred in at leastfive of their boreholes.'Undetected cobbles and boulders may exist at other(locations), either randomly or in concentrations'. Elsewhere i't 0301-34288 Page 10

is reported that the cobbles andboulders are 'more 1ikely along the north (right) side of the mainchannel ' .

3.4.2 GeophysicalMethods

ESSO a1 so triedto map theriverbed alluvium by means of a ground penetratingradar system. It was operatedfrom the surface of the ice in the 1981 programconducted by Komex. Thirteenprofiles werecompleted mainlyfor proposed riverbed pipeline crossings. In some areas,there was penetrationtheofalluvium andthe contact with theunderlying glaciolacustrineclay could be distinguished. However, formost ofthe profilespenetration was notachieved and the profiles were only suitable fordetermining water depth (Steve Hunter, personal communication).

Moreconventional seismic or E-M techniqueswere not attempted at Norman Wells. ESSO atthat time believed they had sufficient and reliable riverbed information from the boreholes.

It is now thoughtthat E-M techniqueswould have been successful at mappingthethickness recentof alluvial sediments and may have successfullyidentified gravelly zonesfrom silty sandsediments (C. Ne1 son,personal communication). Experience with E-M mapping ofgranular sedimentsunderwater isrelatively limited even at present. In 1980-82, it was an untried method in northern Canadianborrow exploration.

Conventionalhigh resolution shall ow seismicmethods would not 1 ikely have contributed much tothe evaluation of borrow at Norman We1 1 s. The relatively dense surfaceof the riverbed a1 1uvium would have a high reflectioncoefficient for which multiples would mask thenext several metresof the profi 1 e. Sincethese deposits are generally only 2 to 4 m thicktoo much criticaldata would havebeen lost. The relatively 0301-34288 Page 11

shallowwater and variable water depth would a1 so havecreated problems. The interferencefrom echos ofthat surface would obscure significant partsof the records.

4.0 GEOLOGICFRAMEWORK - MACKENZIE RIVER

4.1 RIVER ZONES

The morphologicproperties of variousreaches of the Mackenzie River can be identified, grouped,and used inassociation with certain controlling variables(eg. gradient, sediment type, discharge) subdivideto the entireriver betweenGreat Slave Lake and Point Separation into nineteen sectionswith distinctive fluvial regimes. Thesezones vary inlength from 26 km to 176 km. Table summarizes4.1 geographicfeatures identifying the River Zones.

Information on regionalQuaternary and bedrock geology (including tho descri ption and di s tri bution of surf ici a1 bedrockand unconsol idated depositsin the upland) was intergratedwith river regime data to describe theoverall hydro1 ogic and geologic setting of each river zone.The geologicsetting contains the basic information used todetermine the granularmaterial potential fortheriverbed, therelationship of potentialgranular riverbed deposits uplandto deposits, and the propertiesfor each zone.The compilationof this regional information appearson Table 4.2.

4.2 MORPHOLOGICPROPERTIES OF THE RIVER

Themorphologic properties and regime relationships observed for the MackenzieRiver near the Norman Wellsdeposit (Northwest Hydraulics, 1979) 0301-34288 Page 12

havebeen applied to theentire Mackenzie River between GreatSlave Lake and PointSeparation. The morphologic features observed for each of the nineteenriver zones of theriver include: a) , b) presence of islands,c) height of river banks, d) width of channel, and e) depth of channel. These arediscussed below.

4.2.1 Channel Pattern

Channel patterns show theconfiguration of theriver in plan view and representthe channel adjustment to channel gradient and crosssection ( Reineck and Si ngh, 1975). Control 1 i ng vari ab1 es i ncl udi ng channel gradient,quantity and character of sediments carried, and amount and nature of flow, affectthe channel pattern.

The Mackenzie Riveras a whole is an irregular and slightly sinuousriver characterized by a1 ternation of single channel reaches with much wider mu1 ti-channelbraidedor reaches. The entire channel pattern is i nterrnediate between thecontinuous single channel and a fully braided pattern and as a resultthe Mackenzie has a relativelyhigher bedload and gradient than a single channel river (NorthwestHydraulics, 1979).

Three major channel patterns were identifiedincluding; a) straight ana single, b) braided, and c) meandering were identified. Several transitionalcases including; a) straight transitional to braided, b) braidedtransitional to straight, and c) braidedtransitional to meandering were alsoindicated (see River Landforms, Table 4.2). For the most part thebraided and braidedtransitional to straight zones with higher bed1 oads had betterpotential for granular material sources in the riverbedthan did thestraight channel sections. 0301-34288 Page 13

4.2.2 Is1ands

Thepresence or absence of islands in each river zone was importantto the classificationof the channel pattern as single,braided, meandering or transitional.Generally, numerous islandsare found in mu1 ti-channelor braidedreaches. Information on alluvial sediments inthe islands was obtainedfrom surficial geology maps, fromboreholes inthe river (Public Works Canada, 19761, andfrom notes on hydrographic maps (Canadian HydrographicService, 1983-1986).

4.2.3 ChannelCross Section

The morphology ofthe channel orthe channel cross-section (including width anddepth ofchannel and height of banks) is a functionof flow, quantity and characterofsediment being moved andthe character of sediment inthe channeland the banks or upland. Single channel sections aregenerally wide and shallow and somewhat oversizedin terms of cross sectionalarea. Single andstraight channel reaches usually have bank-to-bankwidths from 0.75 to 3 km; a1 thoughthrough three straight channelsections near and at Mil 1sLake the river can be from 4 to 17 km wide.

The multi-channelreaches are even more oversizedin cross sectional area thansingle channel reaches. Mu1 ti-channelbraidedor reaches have significantvariations in bank-to-bankwidths but are usually from 1.0 to 6.5 km wide. Inthe wider mu1 ti-channelreaches bank-to-bank width unobstructed by islands can be to 4 km or more. This may indicatethat duringdominant flow condition ice jams may haverendered a substantial partof the cross section ineffective. However, thechannel pattern for theMackenzie River is similarto other southern rivers andscour features formed when ice causeslocal concentrations of bottom currents and found 0301-34288 Page 14

on most northernrivers are missing from the Mackenzie. Therefore,the oversizednature of the Mackenzie channel is not totally understood and it maybe caused by otherfactors in its history (NorthwestHydraulics, 1979).

4.3 VARIABLES AFFECTING RIVER REGIME

Channel gradient, sediment type and quantity, and amountand nature of dischargeare variables which affect both channel patterns and the channel crosssection. Some informationrelating to thesevariables havebeen compiled for thenineteen river zones.

4.3.1 Channel Gradient

Channel gradient has a weak inverserelationship to dominant discharge (Northwest Hydraul ics, 1979). In sand bed channels likethe Mackenzie River,gradient is relativelyinsensitive to discharge and more sensitive to channel pattern or bed-sediment load. The riverprofile, Figure 4.1, was developed to show channel gradientsalong the Mackenzie relative to the zones with distinctive channel patterns.

The channel gradient was a1 so used as a factorin rating thegranular potential in theriverbed of each zone. For example, eightriver zones have straight channelswith few islands. These eight have low channel gradients(0.01 to 0.10 m/km) and alsoexhibit low potentialfor granular deposits in theriverbed. Conversely, in thefour of thefive river zones with high or moderate to high potential for granularmaterial, channel patternsare braided or transitional to braided. Channel gradients in thesefour high potential zones range from 0.12 to 0.30 m/km. 0301-34288 Page 15

4.3.2 Sediment Typeand Quantity

Sediment datafor the entire Mackenzie River is limited.Surficial geology maps, notes on 1:50,000 navigation maps, boreholes from river dredging programs, some riverbed sedimentsampling at NormanWe1 1s (Section 3 .O) , and suspendedsediment sampl i ng at and Fort Simpson arethe onlysources of this type of data. There is essentially no detailed bedload information except for near NormanWe1 1 s.

Suspended sediment concentrations(discussed in Section 6.1.21, at gauging stations near Ft. Simpsonand Arctic Red River show high concentrations of si1t and clay with only 10 to 20% fine sand carried during higherflows (Northwest Hydraulics,1979). 1974,In both stations recorded peak sedimentconcentrations of nearly 10,000 mg/l itre (approximately 1 percent by weight, but concentrations are usually (1000 mg/l i tre).

Calculations ofbed materialmobility done by Northwest Hydraulicsfor the Norman Wells areaindicates that the maximum size of transportable material is from 6 to 12 mm (fine to medium gravel) depending on flow. Deposits of coarsecobbles or gravel in the riverbednear NormanWe1 1 s have probably originated from theinflow of higher energy tributary streams, from localerosion of coarser bank deposits,as from transport by ice (Northwest Hydraul i cs, 1979).

In Table 4.2, information on theprincipal types of alluvium found in the riverdeposits of each zone is compiled. Surficial geology and navigation maps provided the first level of information.Boreholes (approximately 270)giving some indication of riverbedconditions for ZonesI to IV, VI toVIII, XI to XI11 and XV, provided the more sitespecific information on river sediments. The locations and schematiclogs of 50 of these boreholesappear on strip maps presentedas Drawings 4.1 (a to 9). These 50 havebeen selectedto be representative of conditionsencountered in 0301-34288 Page 16

eacharea. Because the 270 boreholeswere clustered in areas wherewater depthspresented potential navigational problems, many of themcan be represented by onelog.

Table 4.1, alsocontains a listingof the principal rivers andcreeks whichsupply sediments tothe Mackenzie. Those with gravel beds which couldactively provi de coarsemateri a1 tothe Mackenzieare so indicated in this column.Notes on thetable regarding the landforms andtopography ofthe river bank or up1 andindicate aspects of the geologic setting (eg; grainsize of surficial deposits) which could affect sediment supply to theMackenzie and its .

4.3.3 Discharge

Floodfrequency and dominant flow rates aremajor factors thein transportationand riverbed exposure or burial of granular a1 1 uvium. Although some data isavailable on flowrates (see Section 6.1 and AppendixA) it couldnot be reliablyrelated to each ofthe nineteen separateriver zones. Detailedextrapolation of historicaldata from the four mainstemhydrometric stations to the nineteen river zones was beyond the scope of this assignment.

4.4 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND REGIONALGEOLOGY

Elementsof physiography and regional geology including the distribution of bedrockand Quaternary deposits as we1 1 as riverregime data have contributed to development of thegeologic model or frameworkused to predictthe occurrence of granular deposits in the Mackenzie River. These arediscussed below for the four major physiographic divisions identified by Bostock , 1969. 0301-34288 Page 17

4.4.1 GreatSlave Plain (River Zones I to VII)

From km 0 at GreatSlave Lake to km 410 near CamsellBend, the Mackenzie Rivercrosses the Great Slave Plain of theInterior Plains region. This areais comprised for the most part of low lyingterrain. It is generally below an elevation of 305 m, risinggently to the south and has a regional relief near Ft. Simpson of 152 m in 80 km (Rutteret al, 1973). Northwest of Ft. Simpson the plain rises more steeplyculminating in the Martin Hills Uplands to thesouth and the Ebbutt Hills to the north.

UpperDevonian and Cretaceoussedimentary bedrock (1imestone, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, shale)underlies theplain. Quaternary glacial deposits comprisingfine-grained morainal and glaciolacustrinedeposits with scatteredcoarse-grai nedgl aci of1 uvi a1 deposits, and fine and coarse-grai ned post-g1 aci a1 deposits (a11 uvi a1 , col 1uvi a1 , and organic 1 over1 iethe bedrock. Scatteredpermafrost is present,particularly in til 1 and gl aci ol acustri ne material s beneath theice-rich organic cover.

Major rivers which flow into the Mackenzie include;the Liard, Trout, Redknife,Jean Marie, Harris and Martin rivers. Only the Trout and Jean Marie which drain on limestone uplandsouth of Mackenzie River have gravel beds (seeRiver Topography, Table 4.2).

4.4.2 Mackenzie Plain (River Zones VI11 - XIII)

From km 410 (Burnt Island south of CamsellBend) to km 955.7 (Patricia Island north of Norman We1 1s), the river crosses the Hackenzie Plain which is a narrow area that lies between the Mackenzieand Franklin Mountains. The river is located toward theeastern side of the Mackenzie Plainnear the Frank1 i n Mountains. The landwest of theriver and east of Mackenzie 0301-34288 Page 18

Mountains is a dissected piedmont. Local relief throughout Mackenzie Plainvaries but a difference of915 to 1219 m between theriver and the mountainsover a distance of 6.5 to 8 km is not uncommon (Rutteret a1 , 1973).

The highlyfolded Frank1 in and Mackenzie Mountains contain complex bedrock includinglimestone and dolomite of Devonian age. The lowland adjacent to the Mackenzie River is underlain by mudstone, shale, and sandstone of UpperDevonian and Lower Cretaceous age. Bedrock outcropsare confined to the mountains,deeply dissected piedmont areas, and major rivers,outcrops are morecommon alongthe Mackenzie River toward the north end of the Mackenzi e P1 ai n.

Bedrock isoverlain by a covering of gl aci a1 and post-glaci a1 deposits. Fine-grained morainal and gl aciolacustrinedeposits are the most common surficialmaterials in lowland areas.Glaciolacustrine silts and clays areoften found at ground surface below 150 m in the Mackenzie Plain with some occurrencesto 300 m west of Ft. Simpson. Morainal deposits of silty clay til 1 (<20 percent gravel ) under1 i e gl aciol acustri ne materials and are at ground surface above theglaciolacustrine plain inland from theriver. Some glaciofluvialdeposits containing sand and gravelare a1 so found on Mackenzie River high terraces, in abandoned me1 twater channel s, and as scatteredice contact deposits overlying fine-grained till.

Recent gravel and sand a1 luvium is found along existing rivers and streams and mostly fine with some coarse-grainedcolluvium is associated with steepsl opes. Recent organic materi a1 s over1 i e fine-grai ned glaciolacustrine and morainal deposits.Permafrost is discontinuous in f ine-grainedmaterials south of Willowlake River (km 520) and fairly continuous in these materials north of Will owl akeRiver. 0301-34288 Page 19

A dense, well -intergrateddrainage network ispresent. Some streams flow into the Mackenzie off theadjacent piedmont and uplands and otherscut acrossthe mountains from theplains to theeast and from mountain ranges to thewest. Major rivers with sand and gravel beds flowing from the limestone mountainous terrain to the west into the Mackenzie includethe Nahanni, Root, Dahadinni, Redstone, Keele, and Little Bear Rivers.Rivers from theeast (with gravel beds) which crosslimestone mountains and which at some time during glaciationcarried coarse-grained glaciofluvial materialsincluded the Willowlake River, River-Between-Two-Mountains, Ochre,Blackwater, Wrigley, and Great Bear Rivers. Also approximately 37 small errivers and creeks, many with sand and gravelbeds, drain intothe Mackenzie River across Mackenzie Plain from the east and the west.

4.4.3 Franklin Mountains - Mackenzie Plain(River Zone XIV)

From km 955.7 (PatriciaIsland north of Norman Wells) to km 1017 at Sans Saul t Rapids the Mackenzie River forms the boundary between the Frankl in Mountains on theeast and Mackenzie Plain on thewest. Elements of Franklin Mountains persisteast of theriver andMackenzie Plainfeatures areto the west. TheNorman Range of the Frankl i n Mountains lies 10 km east of the Mackenzie River.Carcajou Ridge and East Mountain, east-west trendingoutliers of theFranklins, lie adjacent to Mackenzie River.

The Frankl in Mountains areisolated structural ridges separated by broad, drift-filledvalleys. The ridgesare developed on resistantPaleozoic carbonaterocks (Hughes, etal, 1973). The Mackenzie Plain is an area of low elevation and relief, underlain by shale,siltstone, and sandstone of Cretaceous and Tertiary age. Locallyinthe Imperial Hillsrelief is developed on Lower Paleozoiccarbonate rock. 0301-34288 Page 20

Fi ne-grai ned gl aci ol acustri ne andmorai nal deposi ts with thick organic coverare the most common surficialmaterials at ground surface. On the east side of the Mackenzie, glaciolacustrine silts and clays predominate in low-lying areas. On thewest side of the Mackenzie River,morainal depositsare found closeto the Mackenziefrom km 966 northward to Maida Creek (km 10011. North of this area, below150 m, gl aciolacustri ne materialsare at ground surface.Extensive coarse-grained glaciofluvial depositsare a1 so found upstream on the Mountain River anda fairlylarge glaciofluvialdeposit is located on thenorth side of Carcajou Ridge. Permafrost is fairly continuous in the Mackenzie Plain and high ice contents exist in the fine-grai ned morainal and gl aciolacustri ne deposits. Thermokarst featuresare also common in theglaciolacustrine materials.

Recent a1 luvial and colluvialdeposits are located along modern rivers and on bedrockand river Val 1ey slopes. The Carcajou andMountain rivers with sand and gravel beds draininto the Mackenzie River from the uplands to the west. Mountain River alsocuts through extensiveglaciofluvial deposits.

4.4.4 Peel Plain - Anderson Plain(River Zones XV to XIX)

The Mackenzie River forms the boundarybetween the Anderson Plain and Peel Plain from San Sault Rapids (km 1017) northward to Pt. Separation (km 1475). Peel Plain on thesouthwest side of the Mackenzie River is a remarkably flat, poorlydrained plain except for re1 ief 229of m in Grandview Hills andfewa prominent morainic hills between Ft. McPherson and Arctic Red River (Hughes etal, 1973). The southern and centralparts of theplain are underlain by flat-lying Lower Cretaceousshale andminor sandstone and thenorthern part by flat-lyingshale and sandstone of the Devonian Imperial Formati on. 0301-34288 Page 21

Anderson Plain tothe east of the Mackenzie is broadly dissected, undulating terraindistinctly different from Peel Plain (Hughes etal, 1973).East of 130" 30' theplain is under1 ai n Middlby e Devonian 1 imestones and shales with some plateau summit areas capped by Cretaceous sandstone and shale;the western partis underlain by sandstone and shale of the UpperDevonian Imperial Formation. The highestparts of Anderson Plain lieclose to the Mackenzie River and much of theplain has a broad regionalsi ope northward. Local re1 i ef of 150 to 228 m in Anderson P1 ai n was sufficient to control movements of the last Laurentideice-sheet. As a result a complicated array of glacialdeposits (frontal moraines, me1 twater channel s, gl aci of 1 uvi a1 deposits and gl aci ol acustri ne materi a1 s) are superimposed on theirregular upland.

From San Saul t Rapids to the Ramparts (River Zone XV) fine-grained gl aciolacustri ne deposits predominate east and west of the Mackenzie. Near the Ramparts (River Zone XVI) fine-grained moraine plaindeposits are most common east of the ri ver and moraine veneered bedrock 1 ies west of theriver.

In River Zones XVII and XVII I both ne-grainedfi morainal and gl aciolacustri ne materialsare present. From the Ramparts north to Payne Creek east of theriver, flat moraine plaindeposits are most common.To the west of theriver glaciolacustrine materials predominate.

East of the Mackenzie from PayneCreek in River ZoneXVII to Rabbit-Hay Riverin River Zone XVIII glaciolacustrinesilts and claysare wide-spread below150 m and morainal deposits of til 1 coverthe up1 ands above150 m. On thewest side of theriver morainal depositsare more continuously at ground surface. 0301-34288 Page 22

From Rabbi t- in Zone XVIII to Pt. Separation at the north endof Zone XIX, fine-grained moraine plain,veneer, and hummocky moraine lie both east and west of the Mackenzie River.

Glaciofl uvial sand and graveldeposits are scattered throughout the Anderson Plain - Peel Plainregion and exist as icecontact deposits overlying moraine plainmaterials. Large glaciofluvialdeposits are found west of the Mackenzie Rivernear the Ramparts and east of theriver near Ft. Good Hope. Smallerdeposits occupy oldglaciofluvial channels includingthe valleys of Loon, Tieda, and Thunder Rivers.Ice contact deposits, eg; theesker at Arctic Red River,are atscattered localities overlying moraine plaindeposits.

Organicdeposits form an extensivecover over fine-grained glaciolacustrine and morainal materials.Permafrost is continuous in thesefine-grained deposits and iceinclusions are also found in someof thecoarse-grained glaciofluvial materials.

A1 luvialdeposits exist along presentrivers and streams. Many of the rivers which crossglaciolacustrine plain deposits havesandy a1 luvium whilethe rivers and streams which dissect morainal deposits have both sand and gravel a1 luvium.

Approximately 23 small to medium sizedrivers and streams dissectthe Anderson-Peel Plainphysiographic division. Arctic Red River, which is fairly large, flows intothe Mackenzie Riverin River Zone XIX. 0301-34288 Page 23

5 .O ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 UPLANDGRANULAR RESOURCES DATA

Granularresources information from two reports(Hardy, 1986; and Pemcan, 1972)were utilizedtocompile a summary ofthe available granular materialsdata along the length ofand within approximately 15 km on eitherside, ofthe Mackenzie River. Data north of Norman Wells was obtainedfrom the Hardy report, and the information south of Norman Wells was fromthe Pemcan seriesofreports. The informationinthe Hardy reportappears to be complete. The Pemcan reportsare obviously dated and do notexclude any significantgranular resources that may havebeen used forpipeline, road construction localor community use, since 1972. Forcomparative purposes, however the information is adequate for thelevel of this study.

A1 1 deposits15 km either si de ofthe Mackenzie River were identified and aresummarized in Table 5.1. Environmentalfactors, access concerns, specificquality, permafrost conditions etc. were notconsidered. The volumes shown, representthe total volume indicatedin the references. Table 5.1 alsoincludes a summary ofthe information available for fine sandand sand/gravel occurring the channel for each River Zone.

Inorder to better characterize the location and availabilityof the uplandresources, the river was dividedinto 59, 25 km subzones forwhich thegranular resources data was summarized. Figure 4.1 indicatesthe volumes ofcoarse sand and gravel available only and excludes any fine sand materi a1.

Figure 4.1 shows that there is a scarcityof good granularmaterial at the northand south ends ofthe river. Zones I to VI11 (0-500 km) lack good identifiedmaterial except for a smallsection downstream of Fort Simpson. 0301-34288 Page 24

Similarly, from1325 km to 1475 km, there doesn't appear to bemuch upland borrow. Furthermore, thereappears to be two othersections, 750 to 875 km, and 1000 to 1100 km, that may be short of upland borrow.

5.2 GRANULAR RESOURCES DEMAND INFORMATION

5.2.1 Local Community Requirements

INAC community officers and GNWT granularresources managerswere contacted regarding Mackenzie River community granularrequests from 1987 to 1991. Table 5.2summarizes thegranular materials requirements that were identified.Generally, adequate local supply exists in allareas exceptfor:

Jean Marie River:Granular materi a1 is imported in thewinter Arctic Red River:Granular material is hauled in thewinter from theFort McPherson area

5.2.2 Highway Requirements

Pub1 ic Works Canadawere contactedregarding the locations where granular resources might be required.Information provided by Public Works is summarizedbelow. a)Fort Providence to Fort Simpson:-no informationavailable b) Fort SimpsonArea (km 475-552): -63,000 m3 arepresently stockpiled and additional 10 - 60,000 m3 is requi red. c) Hardie River to River Between -DPW areapparently presently Two Mountains: searchingfor additional gravel. 0301-34288 Page 25

d) Willowlaked) River Area: -63,000 m3 havebeen stockpiled and andadditional 10,000 m3 will be required. e) Wrigleye) Area (km 631-693): -48,000 m3 have been stockpiled and anadditional 10,000 m3 are required. A new nearby pit has beendeveloped forthis requirement.

It appearsthat atpresent, most granular resources requirements are being satisfied adequately utilizing local gravel pits.

5.2.3 Airport Requirements

Transportation Canada was contactedregarding future granular resources requirementsfor airport construction andmaintenance along the Mackenzie River.In summary, thefollowing information was provided:

Norman Wells: Granularmaterial will berequired in 1987. Approximately 10,000 m3 will beremoved from local quarries and an additional 1-2 tonnes will be excavated fromthe riverbed. Fort Good Hope: 20,000 m3 will be requiredfor a new runway.Date required is unknown. Arctic Red River: Approximately 150,000 m3 wi 11berequired to accommodate a 1.5 m thickpermafrost design pad. Date of constructionis not known. Fort Providence: Approximately 8,000 m3 isrequired for cut and fill purposes. No date is known. 0301-34288 Page 26

From theinformation presented, it appears that therequired volumescan be satisfied with thepresent available sources except in the Arctic Red River area which lacks good local granular material.

5.2.4 Pi pel i neRequi rements

GulfCanada Corporation was contactedregarding borrow requirements for pipelineconstruction. GulfCanada, PeBenand partners completed in 1986 the most recent of many pipelinestudies. This studyconsidered a 508 mm (20 inch) to 610 mm (24 inch)diameter pipeline, from RichardsIsland in the north to Zama Lake in the south. The specificlocation of theroute is proprietary but ingeneral follows the course recommended during the BeaufortDelta Project. This study group identified that theirproject would requireapproximately 2 mil lion m3 of select granular material.

In contrastto this, an analysis of the Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited (CAGPL) proposal for a 1220 mm (48inch) gas pipe1 ine whichwas conducted by EBA (1980) forPolar Gas Pipeline Ltd. indicated much greater volume requirements. Between Thunder River (km 1300) and theJean-Marie Riverarea (km 2701, CAGPL'S constructionplans required 11.1 million rd of borrow material. North of Thunder River and south of Jean-MarieRiver the CAGPL route is a considerabledistance from the river. Part of the difference between CAGPL'sand Gulf Canada's pipeline design maybe that the CAGPL figuresinclude all borrow requirementsfor compressor stations, airstrips,construction campsites and accessroads; whereas Gulf are only consideringpipe bedding and select backfill. 0301-34288 Page 27

5.2.5 Potential Borrow Demand

A1 though up1 and granularmateri a1 is scarcein many areasalong the Mackenzie River,current demandby the communities, for airstrips and highwayscan be met in themajority of cases by thepresent available upland resources. It is not clear whether the demand for granular materi a1 woul d increaseif economical suppl ies of riverine borrow became available.Furthermore, as longas largediameter pipeline projects such asPolar Gas are being considered, it is feasible that very major demands might devel op.

5.3 BORROW DEVELOPMENT COSTS

5.3.1 Upland Deposits

GulfCanada Corporation, IPL, PeBen Ltd. and Public Works Canada (PK) were contactedregarding upland borrow economics, for pi pel i ne and road construction purposes. The followingcost figures for borrow material were presented for pipe1 i ne construction: $39/m3 north ofNorman Wells $23/m3 south of Norman We1 1s

Due to theproprietary nature of thepipeline studies, no detailed breakdown of thesefigures was provided, however they are a1 I-i nclusive of: o access road development o excavation o stock pi 1 i ng o haulage o equipment mobilization o borrow area development etc. 0301-34288 Page28

It is assumed thatthe costs are higher north of Norman Wells due to the more sensitivenature of theterrain (permafrost conditions requiring additionalpreparatory work 1, higherexcavation costs infrozen (permafrost)granular deposits, and higher equipment mobilizationcosts.

It was indicated by Gulf Canada thatthese figures include an average haul distance, whichwas not specified. A review ofmaps byHardy (1986) and Pemcan (1973)indicated that on averagepotential borrow areas occurevery 5 km along the'proposed' pipeline route. However, it wouldbe likely thatgreater haul distances,say, on theorder of 12 to 15 km, wouldbe selected because of the high cost of pit development.

Public WorksCanada (PWC) presentedthe following cost figures, for materialbeing removedfrom an existingpit: Excavation cost: $3.90/m3 Haul age cost: $1.20/m3/km

These figures do not include many of the development costfactors included in the Gulf Canada costfigures, and represent a minimum condition.

Some estimatedproduction costs for the Tuktoyuktuk area were presented in a report to INACby EBA (1983). In thisarea, pit development costsare generally low because there is no treeclearing and generally low overburden ratios. Haul costs vary depending on whether there is overland or ice road haulinginvolved. A general breakdown of the Tuktoyuktuk cost would suggestthe fol1 owing cost factors are appropriate for that area: a) Pit Development $1.00 - $1.50/m3 b) Excavation $3.50 - $4.00/m3 c) HaulRoad Development (Winter) $0.20/km/m d) Overland Haul $l.OO/m3/km 0301-34288 Page 29

e) Ice$0.80/m3/km Road Haul

For areasalong the Mackenzie Riversouth of thetreeline and north of Fort Good Hope where thegranular deposits arenaturally frozen (permafrost) (EBA, 19731, thefollowing cost factors appear to be reasonabl e: a) Pit Development $1.00/~3 b) Excavation $4.50/m3 c) Access Road Development $1.00/m3/km (all weather road) d) Overland Haul $1.20/m3/km (from PWC)

South of Fort Good Hope, excavationcosts would be about S4.00/m3 (approximately PWG's $3.90/m3)and thecost of haul road construction waul d be $0.50/m3/km because of lessstringent requirements to protect permafrost terrai n.

On thisbasis, the pipeline rates of $39./m3and $23./m3 obtained from Gulf Canada appear high. In that regard,the following comments are presented:

The break between$39 ./m3 and $23 ./m3 rates would 1 ikely be at Fort Good Hope, not Norman Wells. Work by EBA (1973 and 1974) suggests that deposits between Norman Wells and Fort Good Hope will not be frozen. Assumingan average haul distance of 15 km of which 10 km in on pre-developed pipelineright-of-way, theappropriate cost figures would appear to be$28.50/m3 and $25.50/m3. The disparity between north and south appears to be unreasonable. The pipelinecost of select gravel probably includes a processingcost includingcrushing, screening or washing, and stockpiling. Although this will add to thecost of developing borrow, it is unlikely to 0301-34288 Page 30

exceed $l.OO/m3 in the worst areas (for pipelinerequirements). However, ifmaterial mustbe re-handled to removefrom stockpiles whichhave been allowed to freeze, it could add $3.00 to $4.00/m3 to thecost. d) The relatively volumelow of materialindicated for pipeline requirements (only 2 mi 11 ion m3 for over 2000 km ofpi pel ine) suggests that thepits would besmal 1. Thereforethe development cost per cubic metre would be relatively high.

5.3.2 Riverbed Deposits

The cost of devel oping riverbed borrow and moving it to the site where it will be used has several components. Elxcavation can be by dredging or for small quanti ties drag line, clam she1 1 or evenbackhoe equipment can be used. Transportation can be by bargeor direct pumping by pipelines. For thefollowing cost analysis dredging and barge transport has been considered because it appears most costeffective for moderate to high production rates.

For the Norman Wells Oilfield Expansion Project, a floatingdischarge pipeline was used to rove the dredged borrow to the site of theislands or drill pads on Goose or Bear Islands. Costs to do this were approximately $2.70/m3 for bulk dredging and $5.70/m3 for pipelinedredging and backfilling. These figuresinclude operating costs (fuel, oil, support equipment, etc.) but not mobilization or capitalcosts for the dredges and tugs.

ESSO costs for dredge mobilization were $570,000. for a 14 inch dredge and $1,100,000. forthe 24 inch Arctic Northern (R. Tibbats,personal communications). For 1.8 millioncubic metres of dredging, an equipment mobilizationcost of $0.93/m3 can be determined. For smallerquantities 0301-34288 Page 31

only one dredge would be required but mobi 1 izationcost on theorder of 91-00 to $Z.OO/m3 would be reasonable.Mobilization for tugs and barges must a1 so be included.

Beaver Dredging (Western) Ltd. provided some usefulinformation on the equi pment requi rements and economics of ri verdredgi ng operati ons. Exclusive of equipment mobilization (and capitalization)there are four cost components to a river dredging for borrow operation. These are: a) Excavation and 1 oading at the borrow site - basic equipment would include a dredge and tender tug b Hauling equipment (assumi ng distancegreater than 1 krn which could be serviced by pi pel i ne - a numberof barges and tugs would be required depending on the haul distance and thecapacity of the dredge c) Off-Loadi ng Equipment - for small quantitiesloaders and trucks might work but this would 1 imi t production rates - forlarger operations the borrow could be redredgedoff the barge and stockpiled on land or pipelined a shortdistance inland to the site of need d) Rehandl ing Equipment - a conventionaltruck and loaderoperation to remove borrow from the docksi te stockpile and move it to the site of need

Clearly,there are many variables in calculatingthe cost of dredging river borrow. The selection of equipment and productionrates wi 11 change with haul distances,quantity requirements, and therelative distance of thesite to whichborrow is to be delivered from the landing or dock site. Typical operatingcost for individualpieces of equipment (J. Waring, personal communications) are as follows: 0301-34288 Page 32

a) Bargeloading (or unloading) dredge - $35,00O/week (capableof producing 60,000 m3/week) b)River barges to transport the borrow - $ 4,20O/week (there are a 1imited number of these avai 1ab1 e in Canada) C)Tugs to move bargesand dredges - $35,00O/week dl Loadersand trucks at thestockpile - $21,00O/week

Dredging is geared tohigh production rates and large volumes. Forsmall quantities it is much toocostly. Similarly, river hauling is mostcost effective when distancesare greater. Figure 5.1 provides a comparison of conventional up1 andborrow development costs with dredge and barge costs. Two casesare presented for dredging costs; 1arge volume riverproduction (8600 m3/day)and volumes more comparable toconventional borrow pit productionrates (1400 m3/day). Table 5.3 summarizesestimated unit cost factorsfor the three cases presented in Figure 5.1.

Thereare a coupleof significant factors that cannot be easilyincluded in theseestimates. The initial cost of mobilizing equipment is hard to define.For small operations, trucks and loaders can be contractedfrom thevarious communities along the river. For large volumeoperations, additional onesmust be mobilizedfrom the south. Similarly, for dredges andbarges, if a smalloperation, say inthe order of 100,000 m3,was planned, locallyavailable equipment could be modifiedto do thejob. For a largerproject or verylong hauls, however, speciallydesigned barges anddredges might be required tooptimize the cost ofthe operation. Smallproduction dredges are generally constructed on a jobspecific basis;however, ESSO was ableto bring an existingdredge to Norman We1 1 s when it was needed.Sand haulingbarges are not a common commodityalong theMackenzie system. For a smalloperation it would be possibleto convert same existingbarges to suit; however, it might bemore economic 0301-34288 Page 33 . to constructappropriate ones if a large number of themwere required for high volume operations or haulsexceeding 40 km.

6 .O ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 HYDROLOGY

6.1.1 Hydro1 ogi c Regime

The purpose of this section of thereport is to provide a general review and assessment of the natural variations in discharge, suspended sol ids, bed loadtransport, morphometric features and substrateconditions in major reachesalong the Mackenzie River. A more detailedhydrologic description ofmai nstem reaches is provided in Appendix A.

The Mackenzie River ischaracteri stical ly a turbidriver and carries 2 relatively heavy silt load. In contrast,its smaller tributaries are generallygravel bottomed, faster flowingstreams with clear water much of theyear (F.F. Slaney and Company Ltd., 1973). deposits of the Mackenzie River are dominantly si1t and sand,except immediately downstream of major streamsentering from the west (notablythe Redstone, Keele and Mountain Rivers), where graveltypically overlain by si1t, can be found for a few miles downstream(Hughes etal., 1973).

TheWater Survey of Canada conductshydrometric measurements at designated stations on the Mackenzie River. There arehistorical streamflowrecords for fourhydrometric stations along the Mackenzie mainstem, between the outlet of GreatSlave Lake to Point Separation at the headof the Mackenzie Delta(Inland Waters Directorate,1985). Discharge summaries for these four stations are provided in Table 6.1. 0301-34288 Page 34

The hydrologic regime of the Mackenzie River upstream of Fort Simpson is controlled by thenatural regulating effects of Lake Athabasca and Great Slave Lake. The effects of regulatingthe at Bennett are alsoapparent but not prominent. The ratio of highest to lowestflows have never exceeded 2 in any one year at Fort Providence; and, since 1968, minimum flows have generallyoccurred in September and October and maximum flowsin June and July. At Fort Simpson, below theLiard , the ratio of highest to lowestflows in any one year has varied from about 6 to 12; and, since 1968, minimum flows have generallyoccurred in November and December or late March and early April and maximum flows in June and July. Downstream of Fort Simpson, thelarge unregulated discharge conditions from the Liard and other major tributariescontinue to dominate, and theratio maximumof to minimum flowsin any one year increases in a northerlydirection to approximately 10 to 15 at the Mackenzi e Delta.

6.1.2 Suspended Sediments

There are 1 imi ted long-term data availab1 e on suspendedsediment concentrations along of the Mackenzie Riveras a result of Inland Waters Directorate (IWD) monitoring. However, only three of the nine stations arelocated upstream of the Mackenzie Delta(Inland Waters Directorate, 1984; Western EcologicalServices Ltd., 1985) andmost sampling results are for the open waterperiod only. Numerous short-termsamplings of suspended sediments have a1 so been reported during aquaticfield surveys of variousdescripts. These 'spot'data were typicallyindividual water quality samplings taken at differentlocations during fisheries surveys or at one location overshort-term major events, eg: or summer events, break-up, freeze-up,etc. 0301-34288 Page 35

All data indicatethat most suspendedsediment (98 percent) iscarried in the May to Octoberperiod and dailyloads are highly variable and strongly influenced by storm events in thebasin. Concentrations are typically in the range of 50 - 1500 mg/l below Fort Simpson a1 though peak values of over 9,000 mg/l havebeen recorded(Inland Waters Directorate,1980). Above theconfluence with the Liard, concentrationsare much lower and 1 essvariable. Brunskill et a1 (1973)recorded 100 to 200 mg/l of suspendedsediment in theEast Channel of the Mackenzie Deltain mid-summer,compared to 62 mg/l inOctober and 10.7 mg/l in November.In contrast Hei genbottom 1978 reported peak suspended sedimentconcentrations that have approached10,000 mg/l nearArctic Red River. More direct data in this regard is presented in Appendix A.

6.1.3 . River Morphology

Morphologicalaspects of the MackenzieRiver have been studied extensively, however,most studiesare either limited to a shortriver reach(such as thevicinity of a proposed pipe1 i ne crossing), or to a particularaspect of fluvial morphology (over a largerreach) such as ice-thrustridges. Muchof thewatercourse isrelatively stable, with we1 1 -def i ned channel s. Incisedreaches with banks of non-fluvial materialsare common. These can be expected to be relativelyinsensitive to changes in thedischarge regime. Sensitiveunstable channel reaches, with low, erodible banks and shifting channels also occur. The most morphologically sensitivearea of the Mackenzie River is theDelta which is outsideis the area being studied. The riverreach from the Liard/Mackenzie confluence at Fort Simpson downstream to Camsell Bend is alsorather unique. The east and west banks of the Mackenzie are morphologically very different due to slow mixing between theLiard and Mackenzie Rivers. The east bank resembles a lakeoutlet channel, characterized by a very stablecoarse armour of cobbles and boulders. The 0301-34288 Page 36

west bank has an unstablesand substrate, characterized by shifting bars andislands (McDonald and Kellerhal s, 1978).

The MackenzieRiver system shows evidenceof long-term degradation: valley entrenchment,unpaired terraces, and knick points inthe long profile. Channeldegradation, bank erosionand hillslope erosion supply more material s overextensive reaches than the river is capableof carrying. Thisresults in the formation of islands andbars where channel conditions arefavourable (Inland Waters Directorate, 1986). Under high flow conditionsthe river can transport sandand gravel up toabout 10 nm in size as bedload,and it carries a substantialload of silt and clayin suspension.Rates changeof inthe locations theof major banks and islandsare generally very slow. Changes in majorsand bars are mre rapid, a1 thoughslow compared to many large a1 1 uvialrivers (Northwest Hydraul ic Consultants Ltd., 1979 1.

Thereare large variations in sediment in different stretches ofthe Mackenzie River. Public Works Canada haveestimated the frequency of requiredof maintenance dredging (ie: time forfill-in of previous dredgingoperations) for different segmentsof theriver. FromGreat SlaveLake to Cameron Point(kp 425), the Mackenzie River is consideredto needre-dredging 1 in 30 years. At Cameron Point,the estimate for maintenancedredging is 1 in 20 years.Other more rapidinfill ing areas includethe west side of McGern Island andthe Fish Trap Creek area where a dredgingfactor of 1 in 10 yearsis estimated, and theBlackwater River andDahadi nni River areas where the maintenance dredging requirement is estimatedat 1 in 3 years(Public WorksCanada, 1976). 0301-34288 Page 37

6.1.4 Hydrology Concerns Related to GranularMaterials Removal

The principal hydro1 ogicconcerns re1 ated to the removal of granular bed materials from the Mackenziemainstem will be:

The resuspension of si1ts, clays and some sands into thewater column (increased )as a result of the removal of thelarger more desi red bed material s. The potential downstream redisposition of interstitial si1 ts and clays (and some sands) in areas of other bed typesas a result of the increased suspended loadassociated with the removal of granular materials upstream. The potential change in channelwidth (wider or narrower)as a result of gravel removal ; an associatedshal lowi ng or deepening of thewater column; and a reductionor increase in velocities. Thea1 teration of bedload movementand composition within and downstream of thegranular materials removal area.

the basis of assessment and monitoring resultsrelated to thedredging Pub1 ic Works Canada of sections of the Mackenzie River mainstem for navigationpurposes, the recent construction by ESSO Resources Canada Limited of severalartificial islands inthe Mackenziemainstem near Norman Wells, theconstruction by InterprovincialPipe LineLimited of a Mackenziemainstem pipelinecrossing upstream of Fort Simpson, and the workshop reviews during the 1985-1986Mackenzie Environmental Monitoring Project,the effects on downstream suspended loads of major in-stream operations on the blackenzie mainstem should be short-term and minimal (and in many casesnegligible). The largedilution factor offered by thelarge year-round Mackenzie discharge is perhaps thesingle most important factor. 0301-34288 Page 38

InterprovincialPipe Line Limited and Indian andNorthern Affairs Canada conductedaquatic mnitoring programs in 1984and 1985 todetect impacts onwater quality of in-stream blasting, ditch excavation and backfilling operationsduring construction of their pipeline crossing upstream of Fort Simpson (InterprovincialPipe Line Limited (NW) Ltd.,1984). The results ofwater quality analyses both during and after the in-stream blasting revealedminor and short-term (less than 24 hour)increases inturbidity andsuspended solidsat some stations downstreamfrom the blast. All objectivesestablished for domestic consumption of waterwere met.

The monitoringprogram to detect increases in sediment concentrations from ditchexcavation and backfill ing operations showed thatturbidity and suspended solidsupstream and downstream did not differ significantly. Theexcavation released very littlefine (silt and claysizes) sediment. Thelarge volume ofnatural flow through the construction area was identified as having a significantdilution effect on whateversediment was suspended in the water column.

ESSO's dredgingof almost 2,000,000 m3 ofgravel from the Mackenzie River was expectedto cause some increasein silt loads and some sedimentation whichwould be unavoidable but negligible (ESSO Resources Canada Ltd., 1980). On a recent(September 1986) aquatic monitoring survey by Seakem/ESL staffin the Norman Wellsarea, the presence sedimentof depositiontai 1s whichwere predicted to extend downstream from the artificialislands, was clearlyevident. Two ofthe islands in fact were almostjoined by thedeposition tail from the upstream station (pers. comm. Blai r Humphrey, Seakem Oceanography Ltd. 1.

TheMackenzie Environmental Monitoring Project (MEMP, 1986)participants suggestedthat gravel extraction could a1 terboth channel morphometry and bedmaterial composition but thatthe effects would berelatively short-1 ived in streams or rivers with high bed1 oad transport rates such as 0301-34288 Page 39

the Mackenzie River. More long-term effects would be possible'if (1) bouldersare removedfrom thestream and theycannot be naturallyreplaced by theriver; and (2) the volume of excavatedmaterial islarge in comparison to therates of bedload transport'. Short term effects must be considered on a sitespecific basis because thefines content of the dredged sediments,the flow rates and waterquality at the time of dredging and thefish species in the nearby downstream areawill vary considerably along the river and seasonal ly.

6.2 WATER QUALITY

6.2.1 General Concerns

The major environmental threatto water quality posed by the removal of granular borrow material from theriverbed isthe potential release of sorbedchemicals as a result of theresuspension of fine-grained (si1t/clay) particulates. The magnitude of theeffect will be a function of therelative increase in suspended particulateconcentrations that might occur and theassociated particulate concentrations of envi ronmental lyimportant chemi cal s. These woul d i ncl ude several trace metals as we1 1 asvarious types of hydrocarbons (non-pol ar and aromatic).

There havebeen severalreviews of waterquality in the Mackenzie River based on Inland Maters Directoratemonitoring over the past twenty years (seefor example Reeder,1973; Reeder et a1 ., 1972; Reid et a1 ., 1975; Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981).Previous monitoring has not included hydrocarbons so that there is very limiteddata available and noneabove detectionlimits before 1985. Trace metal data in thewater is collected on a regularbasis but muchof this, especiallyfor somekey elements such as Cd and Hg, is below detectionlimits or of questionable quality. The datafor trace metals and hydrocarbons associated with 0301-34288 Page 40

suspended sediments andbed sediment is even more limited. Recent and on-going monitoring programs beingconducted for IWD are examining hydrocarbons associated with suspended sediments.

6.2.2 Hydrocarbons

The Mackenzie Riverpotentially could have locally high levels of hydrocarbonsbecause of oi 1 and gas deposits a1 ong theriver and its tributaries. Oilseeps along the Mackenzie Riverare an oftencited but poorly documented occurrence. It has been known for many years that oil seepageoccurs in thevicinity of Norman We1 1 s and indeed thepresence of surface oil led to theearly development of the Norman We1 1 s oi 1 fie1 d (Kindl e and Bosworth, 1920).Outcrops of bituminous or oi 1 containing sands and limestonesare located along the shores of GreatSlave Lake and along stretches of thePeace, Athabasca and LesserSlave Rivers. Below GreatSlave Lake, the only other documented oil seepage or bituminous outcrop,other than near Norman We1 1s, is in thevicinity of Fort Good Hope. Bituminous Devonian shalesare exposed on theriver bank upstream of 01 d Fort Good Hope while tar springs exist inland from Fort Good Hope.

There are however no good estimates of the volumes of hydrobarbons that may enterthe river from thesesources nor any informationregarding their fate. Recent data from the summer of 1985 suggest that thereare some hydrocarbons of petrogenic origin detectable on particulates below Norman Wells (Nagy et a1 ., 1986). However, this was based on a single bed sediment sample. More recent hydrocarbon data from the Mackenzie in thewinter of 1986 gave no indications of hydrocarbons of petrogenicorigin (Erickson and Fowler, 1986). In both studies,dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations werebelow detection. In response to Deneand Metis concerns, both EPS and IWD arecontinuing studies in thisregard. 0301-34288 Page 41

Evenwhen sediment hydrocarbon concentrationsare high, resuspension will resultin only brief and localizedincreases in particulate hydrocarbon concentrations.Dissolved hydrocarbon concentrationsare unlikely to be altered. The reason for this conclusionare:

1. resuspensionwill occur in summerwhen flows aregreatest ensuring the greatestdilution rate, 2. natural suspended particulateloads are high and variable in the summer months, and 3. hydrocarbons have a strongaffinity for particulate and will tend to remain associated with theparticulate phase. 4. hydrocarbons will be preferrential ly absorbed to si1 t and claysized particles which willrarely exceed 15 percent of the volume of expl oi tab1 e granul ar borrow.

6.2.3 TraceMetals

The availabledata on trace metal concentrations in bed sediments and suspended particulates do not indicate any unusually high levels ofany metals with theexception ofsome mercury data in thereports by Reeder (1973) and Reed et a1 . (1975). These studies gave some very high mercury concentrations compared to typicalunpolluted riverine or marine sediments (Forstner and Wittmann, 1979). Recent winter data (Erickson and Fowler, 1986) found much lower levels and itis felt that the earlier results may be in error due to analytical problems or contamination. Even with the extremely high levelsreported, it is unknownhow much, if any of the particulateassociated metal might be released into solution. As for hydrocarbons, any effect will be transitory and short-1 i veddue to rapid dilution with the main river flow. 0301-34288 Page 42

6.3 FISHERIES

6.3.1 Data Base

The followingdiscussion focuses on fishresources in the Mackenzie River, with particularattention to thearea between Trout River (km 228) and the confluence of Arctic Red River (km 1454). In Appendix B, fisheries relateddata is summarized for each river zone. The information review is based largely on intensivestudies conducted during theearly 1970's associated with several large-scal e devel opment proposal s, pri nci pal ly the Mackenzie Highway and the Canadian Arctic Gas Pipelineproject (eg: Hatfieldet a1 1972a,b; Dryden et a1 1973; Steinet a1 1973; Brunskill et a1 1973; McCart, 1974; McCart et a1 1974; Jessop et a1 19741, and several summary and review documents based largely on thesestudies (Doran 1974; McCart and Den Beste 1979; Dome Petroleum et a1 1982). These studies dealt almost exclusively with resourcesassociated with Mackenzie River tributaries on theeast side of thevalley, and usually only provided indirect information with respect to utilization of mainstem habitats,the primary focus of potential gravel removal operations.

Recently,additional studies were completed with respectto the Norman Wells Expansion Project (HardyAssoc. Ltd. 1979; Envirocon Ltd. 1980; ESSO Resources1980) and itsassociated pipeline project undertaken by InterprovincialPipe Line (NW) Ltd. These studies provided some site specificinformation for the mainstem river, but were generallylimited to areasinthe immediate vicinity of Norman Wells. Othersupplemental information was obtained from results of the Mackenzie Environmental Monitoring Project (MEMP) (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada et a1 19861, contact with theFreshwater Institute, unpublished monitoring surveys of domestic fisheries in the Mackenzie corridor provi ded by MacLaren Plansearch ( 19851, and other unpublished reports. 0301-34288 Page 43

6.3.2 SpeciesPresel t

A total 38of species are known to occur within the Mackenzie Val 1 ey corridor(see Table 6.2 , however only a portion of theseare uti1 ized to any degree in domestic, commercia1 , or sport fisheries.Further, not a1 1 of thespecies are abundant or distributedwithin the entire Mackenzie mainstem studyarea. Nevertheless, the region possesses some unique fish resources. For example, the Mackenzie River is suspected to be the only drainagesupporting Arctic cisco spawning in Canadaand possessthe largestpopulations of broad whitefish in Canada (XNAC et a1 1986).

Utilizinginformation fromMcCart and Den Beste (1979) and the Dome et a1 ( 1982) summary, a total of 16 species havebeen identified to have some significancefor domestic, or sportfishery uses, and thereforeare considered major specieswithin the mainstem corridor upstream of Arctic Red River(Table 6.2). Other speciesare not generallyutilized or occur predominantly in areas of the Mackenzie Delta. For example, a1 though Arcticchar is a highlyprized species, it generally only occurs in areas of thewestern Delta (Peel, Rat, and Big Fish Rivers), and has not been considered as a major speciesfor the purpose of thisstudy.

As indicated in Table 6.2, some speciesare anadromous, spending some portion of theirlife history in the marine environment, returning to spawn freshwaterin habitats. In addition,the species include both spri rig and fa1 1 spawners, indicatingthe general period during which spawning activityoccurs.

There is very little data on the abundance of indi vi dual species, and estimatingthe numbersof fish is further complicated by thedifferent migratorypatterns which result in highlyvariable numbers, depending on the time of year.Generally, south of theDelta, grayling is most widely distributed, along with northernpike and longnosesuckers. A1 though both 0301-34288 Page 44

northernpike and gray1 ing are widely distributed throughout the system, northernpike are generally moreabundant and occur inlarger tributaries andlow-gradient regions of themainstem Mackenzie River. Arctic grayling aremre widespread but are most abundant in some tributary streams, particularlywithin the southern portion of the mainstem corridor. Some of thespecies, including mountain whitefish, Dolly Varden char, and ye1low walleye are generally restricted to areas south of Norman We1 Is, nearthe northern limits of their range (Dome et a1 1982). Incontrast, ciscos and whitefishappear to be themost abundant inthe northern areas of theMackenzie corridor, downstream from Norman Wells.

6.3.3 Seasonal LifePatterns a)Spawning: Spawning characteristics of themajor species within the Mackenzi e corridor havebeen summarized by Doran (19741, Dome et a1 ( 19821,and McCart and Den Beste(1979). Most of the major species withinthe study area (11 of 16) are fall or winter spawners. As a result,these species require habitats that will providesufficient oxygen,water levels, and protection from severe ice conditions over thewinter months.Consequently, they tend to utilize larger rivers for spawning,such as theMackenzie mainstem, Arctic Red and Great BearRivers, inaddition to lakes accessible within the Mackenzie corridor.Although rnainstem spawning, particularly for whitefish and ciscos hasbeen suggested (Dome et a1 19821, thereisalmost no documentation of theseareas, since most surveys have concentrated on tributary systems.However, recentstudies by DFO havedocumented whitefish spawning activitiesin the rnainstem just belowthe Upper Rampartsarea (lateOctober early November).Other known areasnear or within the mainstemare at the mouth of Arctic Red River and Point Separation(Stein, DFO Winnipeg,pers. comm. 1. 0301-34288 Page 45

In contrast,spring spawners (Arctic gray1 ing, northernpike, yellow walleye,suckers) generally spawn duringperiods of relatively high flow during and followingspring ice break-up (normally during May and June).Since the eggs of thesespecies are not required to survive the harsh conditions of northern wi nters,these species may uti 1 ize smal ler watercourses which might completely freeze during thewinter. Thespawning period a1 so commonly coincides with periods of re1 atively high concentrations of suspended solids in many of thelarger watercourses, and it has been suggested that someof thespecies (particularlyArctic grayling) migrate into clearertributaries to spawn during this period ( Doran 1974). Steinet a1 (1973)suggested that in thesouthern portion of the Mackenzie corridor,the onset of spawning occursapproximately 2 weeks earlierfor spring spawners and 2 weeks later for fall spawners, compared to areasnear the Delta, as a result of thedifferences in latitude between these areas. b) Migrations: The Mackenzie River mainstemand its major tributaries, such as Arctic Red, Great Bear and LiardRivers represent major migratory pathways for both anadromous and residentfreshwater species. For most species, spawning, nursery, and overwinteringareas can occur in distinctlydifferent habitats. Most of the anadromous speciesare concentrated principally belowNorman We1 1 s, however almost allthese species havebeen reportedin the Mackenzie drainage as far south asFort Simspon.For example, whitefishrepresent a significantproportion of thedomestic catch throughout the corridor (Section6.3.4). A1 so, smal 1 runs chumof salmon arereported to ascend theriver to GreatSlave Lake in September orOctober (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Normally, thesespecies (with theexception of chum salmon) migrate upstream duringthe summer months, and may return to mainstem overwinteringareas following spawning inthe fall. For example, Steinet a1 (1973) documented the upstream movementof Arctic cisco andInconnu in the mai nstem by monitoringthe successive 0301-34288 Page 46

occurrence ofpeak abundance fromdownstream to upstream sites over thecourse of the summer. Spring spawning species normally mi grate from overdinteri ng areas into spawning habitatsfollowing ice break-up. After spawning, they may return to summer feedingareas in mainstem habitats or larger tributaries. For example, grayling from tributaries near Norman Wells weredocumented to move from tributary spawning areas into the Mackenziemainstem and upstream into theGreat Bear River over the summer (Jessop et a1 1974).Concentrations of Arcticgrayling and 1 ongnose suckers havebeen documented in numerous smallercleardater tributaries throughout the Mackenzie corridor. Although relatively little is known aboutmigrations of other spring spawning species, it is suspected that theother common species(eg: northern pike and burbot) do not undertakelarge scale migrations within the Mackenzie corridor. For example, inrecent sampling for burbot near Norman We1 1s it wasassumed that burbot aregenerally confined to riverareas less than approximately 40 km in length (ESL Environmental Sciences Limited and Aquatic Environments Ltd. survey; B. Humphries, pers. comm. 1. c) Nursery Areas: Nursery habitatsexist throughoutthe Mackenzie system, and generally most streamssupporting spawning a1 so provide some rearingcapacity. Many tributaries,including small unnamed watercourses, a1 so supportjuvenile populations of gray1 i ng, northern pike and 1 ongnose suckers. For example, tributaries of the Norman Wells areaconsistently supported young Arcticgrayling (Dome et a1 19821, and tributaries of theGreat Bear Riverprovide nursery habitat forArctic grayling, northern pike, Arctic cisco, whitefish, inconnu, suckers, and burbot. NearNorman Wells, Envirocon Ltd. (19811, reportedthe presence of juvenile and underyearlingfish alongshallow gravel/cobble bars, particularly nearthe mouthsof tributaries on the eastshore, such as Billy, Oscar, and Elliot Creeks. Most of the juvenilefish were non-salmonid foragespecies (lake chub, trout, 0301-34288 Page 47

perch). However, juvenileburbot and some salmonids(particularly whitefish and cisco)were a1 so present. A1 though whitefish and ciscos occurthroughout the Mackenzie system, the Mackenzie Delta as well as 1 akesand rivers on the Tuk Peninsulahave been identified as significantrearing areas for whitefish and ciscospecies which have spawned upstream (Dome et a1 1982). Withinthe Mackenzie minstem, Stein et a1 (1973)and Jessop et a1 (1974)reported consistent use of backeddiesand side channels by juvenilepike, suckers, walleye, and burbot. In the southern portion ofthe corridor, tributaries such as theTrout River provide nursery habitatprincipally for pike, grayling, walleye and suckers (Dome et a1 1981). d) Overwintering:d) Overwintering habitats areimportant identify,to sincethey represent areas where fish can become concentratedand relativelysedentary over several months between freeze-up and break-up.Most overwintering habitats have been identified todate fromsurveys associated with the Arctic Gas PipelinePrcject (eg: McCart1974; McCart andMcCart 1982). These habitats occur in permanentlyflowing tributaries, spri ng-fed streams , lakes,and MackenzieDelta habitats. The Deltaregion, below Arctic Red River hasbeen identifiedfrom several surveys as a majoroverwintering area forwhitefish and ciscospecies (Stein et a1 1973and Mann 1975). It hasbeen consistentlyhypothesized that overwintering a1 so occurs throughoutthe Mackenzie mainstem, however there are no directsurveys of mainstemoverwintering available to date.

6.3.4 ResourceHarvesting a)Domestic Fishing: The harvestingof fish resources in the Mackenzie corridor,particularly for domestic use, represents oneof themost 0301-34288 Page 48

importantactivities and foodsources for communi tiesalong the river (Dome et a1 1982).Increasing emphasis has a1 so been placed on the developmentofsport and, at times, on selectedcommercial fishing activitiesthroughout the area. Generallydomestic fisheries occur around tributary mouthsnear settlements and inthe MackenzieDelta (Hatfiel d et a1 1972a; LGL et a11986; Dome et a1 1982).Most intensive fishing occurs just after f reeze-upand spring break-up, the most active periods offish migration(Hatfield et a1 1972a).Within the study area, general locationsof intensive domestic fishing include Arctic Red River,Fort Good Hope, Norman Wells , Fort Norman, Fort Simpson,and TroutLake (Dome et a1 1982). The amounts offish taken and therelative importance of various fishingareas havebeen difficult to det.ermine , sincethere havebeen few consistentstudies of domestic fisheries, and thedata over the years has exhibitedwide vari abi 1i ty. McCartand Den Beste(1979) cited one studyundertaken throughout Mackenziethe corridor (Table6.3). They indicatethat the greatest proportion of the catch is obtainedis from the Mackenzie Delta toArctic Red River (approximately 68 percentofthe catch). Inthe lower Mackenzie region,whitefish are the major species harvested. Other species includeci scos,inconnu, northern pike and burbot. Inthe other regionsof the Mackenzie corridor (Fort GoodHope toTrout Lake), whitefishspecies are also prevalent, howeverinconnu, northern pike, Arcticgray1 ing, walleye and suckers a1 so contributeto the catch (Dome et a1 1982;McCart and Den Beste1979; MacLaren Plansearch 1985). Inthe Norman Wellsarea, fishing for Arctic grayling occurred atStewart Creekand the mouth ofthe Three Day Lakedrainage. Local fishermenalso harvest small numbers ofwhitefish, inconnu, Arctic cisco,pike, and walleye from other areas of the river (LGL et a1 1986). 0301-34288 Page 49

b)Sport Fishing: Locations of sport andcommercial fisheries have been summarizedby Dome et a1 (1982)and McCart and Den Beste(1979). Sportfishing is mainlyconcentrated away fromthe Mackenzie mainstem onvarious lakes and tributary streams. Some sportfishing occurs nearFort Norman inthe MackenzieRiver, and near the mouth of the GreatBear River. Residents of all communities also utilize various mainstemareas and small local lakes and tributary streams. Northern pike,Arctic grayling, lake trout and whitefishare the most commonly soughtspecies (Dome et a1 1982). LGL et a1 (1986)report that in the Norman Wellsarea Arctic grayling, northern pike, and yellow walleye arefished near the mouths ofsmall er tributaries, such as Bosworth Creek,the DOT lakedrainage (KP 897),and Oscar Creek. Inthe southernportion of the corridor, some fishingactivity occurs in the MackenzieRiver near Fort Simpson and near the mouths of the Liard and TroutRivers. Common speciesare northern pike, Arctic grayling, whitefish,and walleye. c) CommercialFishing: There isvirtually no commercialfishing activity withinthe mainstemstudy area, since most commercial activity is restrictedto the Delta or areas near Great Slave Lake (McCart and Den Beste1979). Some pastcommercial activity hasbeen reportedin the areabetween Norman Wellsand Fort Norman andnear Fort Simpson.

6.3.5 Habitat Uses

Availableinformation on fish useand resource harvesting within eachof thespecific reach zones(see Table 4.1) isprovided in Appendix B. It includes the fol 1 owi ng informati on:

o Majortributaries o Majorspecies present 0301-34288 Page 50

o Documented orsuspected habitat uses o Resourceharvesting areas o Summary offisheries concerns

Thereach zones ofparticular significance are shown in Table 6.4. These reachesare characterized by a combinationof the factors, particularly thepresence ofdomestic fishing areas, several tributary systems with documentedspawning and rearingpopulations, and physicalcharacteristics suchas gravel bars and/or side channels which are typically associated with mainstemrearing or spawning.

The lackof specific information with respect to utilization of mainstem habitats makes it difficultto evaluate in detail any ofthe river areas. Inaddition, the information todate, suggests that all areas ofthe mainstem riverare utilized at some timesfor major migration of most of theimportant species. At present some studies,including the Mackenzie EnvironmentalMonitoring Project (MEMP), are in progressto identify the differentstocks of whitefish,including major migratory routes andtimes (INAC et a1 19861, andthese kinds of studies will aidin the subsequent evaluationof various river reaches.

6.4 FISHERIES CONCERNS RELATED TO GRANULARMATERIALS REMOVAL

The followingsection summarizesthe major concerns associated with fish resourcesand the potential removal granularof materials from the Mackenziemainstem. The majorobjective is to summarizethose aspects of theseoperations that represent significant issues, and identifythose speciesor life history stages that are of particular concern. Consistent withthe overall objectives of this phase ofthe study, the following discussionis not intended to provide a detailedevaluation or assessment 0301-34288 Page 51

ofthe potential degree of impact from any specificdredging proposals, so much as clarifythose issues or areas which should receive particular attention in subsequentstudies.

6.4.1 PotentialSources Disturbanceof

A1 thoughthere are no details on thetypes of gravel removal operations whichmight be utilizedwithin the Mackenziemainstem, some formof dredging wi11 be 1i kely . The effectof dredging operations wi11 be similarin many ways toother forms ofinstream disturbances which have occurredpreviously, including the Norman WellsExpansion project, various pipelines andhighway developments. There have been numerous reviews indicating a rangepotentialof sources disturbanceof and effects anticipatedfrom these types of operations ( INAC et ai 1986;Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1986; Dome et a1 1982; ArcticLaboratories Limitea et ai 1985; Jessop et a1 1974; and Steinet a1 1973). The specificissues incl ude: o Increasedlevels of suspendedsediments o Downstreamsedimentation o Re-suspension ofcontami nated sediments 0 A1 teration ofhabitat characteristics o Directinterference with mi grations/spawning o Decreasedfishing success o Mortalityfrom dredging machinery

6.4.2 SuspendedSediments andSedimentation

Potentialproblems related to suspendedsediments downstreamand sedimentationareprobably themost often cited concerns regarding 0301-34288 Page 52

proposals for instream activities such dredging.as The range of potentialeffects from increasedlevels suspended sedimentsgenerally includebehavioral changes in fish,reductions in fish food organisms, and directeffects on fish health, such as lethal or sublethalreactions associated with increasedlevels of stress.Potential problems associated with downstream sedimentationinclude the degradation of fish spawning and rearingareas, and reductions in benthic prey organisms.

Obviously theextent of thedisturbance will depend manyon factors, includingthe gradation and finescontent of materialspresent in the river bottom, thenature of riverflows, the specific time and location of the granular removal activity. In a recent review of thepotential effects of instream activities for the Mackenzie Environmental Monitoring Project (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada et a1 19861, it was concluded thatthe effects of suspended sediments were a valid concern with respect to instreamactivities. Although fish can generallytolerate relatively high levels of suspended sedimentswithout any mortality,recent studies havedocumented significantsublethal effects in Arcticgrayling at levels of suspended sol ids of a few hundred ppm. However, it was pointed out thatother species (whitefish) appear to havebeen attracted to turbidity plumes associated with instreamdisturbances. Further, gray1 ing are generallyassociated with clear-watertributaries, rather than mai nstem habitats, and theeffects of suspended sediments may, therefore, bemore pronounced for this species.

The Mackenziemainstem is normally turbid and experiencesrelatively high levels of suspended sol ids (several thousand ppm) during the open-water period. As a consequence, it is anticipatedthat where instream activitiesassociated with gravel removal are of a relativelyshort duration,the effects of suspended sediment additions to the Mackenzie mai nstem maybe virtual ly undetectable. 0301-34288 Page 53

The mostpronounced effects of increased suspendedsediments might occur duringthe winter months, when thewater is normally relatively clear, however, it isunlikely that any dredgingwould occur then. At these times it is assumed that some species(principally whitefish ciscos, burbot,pike, suckers) would be overwinteringin mainstem habitats within thecorridor, but there is virtually no supportingdocumentation on the abundance orspecific habitats utilized at this time. Available survey information hassuggested that most intensively utilized mainstem area is in the vicinity of the Delta, including Arctic Red River.

The MackenzieEnvironmental Monitoring Project concluded that the most significantpotential problem associated with downstream sedimentation would be its effect on spawningareas ( Indianand Northern Affairs Canada et a1 1986).There substantialis documentation, particularly for salmonids(salmon and trout species) that the survival of eggs orlarval fish can be reduced by theintroduction fine sediments to the substrate. Further,the Mackenzie Environmental Monitoring working group concluded that it couldtake a considerabletime for some sedimentsto be flushed outof the system. It was alsoconcluded that the most serious effects would be fromlarge scale or chronic inputs ofsediments and on species withrelatively local distributions, long incubation times and relatively large eggs (lowsurface to volume ratios).Arctic char, which generally occuroutside of the area affected by potentialgravel removal operations, appear to be mostsensitive to thispotential effect. There are relatively few studieswhich have examined the actual impact of instream disturbances on spawninggrounds, however, one study(Zal len 1984) documented theincreased levels of sediments during pipeline trenching operationsin B.C. had no significantaffect on incubatingmountain whitefish eggs within 1 km downstream.

The extentto which sedimentation could bea problem, will depend on the specifichabitats uti1 ized downstream of potentialremoval sites, however 0301-34288 Page 54

thereis relatively little known withrespect to mainstem spawning inthe Mackenziemainstem, atthis time.

6.4.3 Resuspension Of ContaminatedSediments

The potentialconcern associated with resuspension contaminatedof sediments was addressedwith respect to WaterQuality concerns Section 6.2. It was concludedthat a1 thoughlocalized areas of hydrocarbonconcentrations may exist, it was unlikelythat significant hydrocarbonwould be released by dredgingactivities in coarser sediments. No majorresuspension of hydrocarbonsor other potential contaminants (eg: tracemetals) aas resultofthe removal of granularmaterials is anticipated. As previouslynoted, however, Dene and Metisresidence of theMackenzie Valley have concerns for the hydrocarbons inthe Mackenzie system,whether they be naturallyoccurring or the product of regular activities on theMackenzie. Several studies by EPS and IWD includingthe MackenzieEnvi ronmental Monitoring Program are exami niny these concerns. Prior to any majordredging activities a sitespecific evaluation would be needed to determi ne thepotential forsignificant resuspension of hydrocarbonsor heavy metals.

6.4.4 Alteration Of HabitatCharacteristics

Theremoval ofmaterials from the riverbed in sufficient quantities could a1ter the channelconfiguration to the degree that its habitat value is decreased. The effects on fish, will ofcourse dependon thetype of utilizationprior to gravel excavation. For example,amainstem corridor principallyutilized for migration may not be significantlyaffected, however theremoval of gravelbars which provide a complex ofshallow habitatswith diverse flow conditions uti1 ized forrearing could 0301-34288 Page 55

significantly reduce thearea's capacity to supportjuveni 1 e fish. The results of limited sampling inthe Mackenzie mainstem, has indicatedthat shallowgravel/cobble shores in the vicinity of Norman Wells areutilized to some degree (Envi rocon 1980).

6.4.5 Interference With Migration/Spawni ng

Instream activitiesare capable of disrupting large numbersof fishif theyoccur during theperiods of major movements or during spawning. While this concern is oftencited with respectdredgingto (eg: Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1986),the effects can be minimized by selectingappropriate timing windows forinstream activity to avoid sensitiveperiods. These periods may vary in different portions of the Mackenzie corridor,since peak migrationsin the north occur at different times than in thesouth. Various sensitiveperiods havebeen proposed for thetributaries of the Mackenzi e corri dor. For example, Jessop et a1 (1974)propased that from mi d-June to mi d-July,juveniles are emigrating out of tributaries into the mainstem. In addition, sensitiveperiods for fa1 1 spawning and spring spawning species were reported to be September 1 to November 15 and May 1 to June 30, respectively. Any furtheranalysis of potential gravel removal areas where large equipment would be uti1ized instreamshould include sitespecific information on probable timing for migrations and an evaluation of potenti a1 spawning potential in the immediate areasto be affected.

6.4.6 Decreased Fishing Success

The Mackenzie Envi ronmental Monitoring Project (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada et a1 1986) examined thepossibility that instream 0301-34288 Page 56

activities would reduce fishing efficiency through decreasedwater clarity. However, theconclusion was that in the Mackenzie mainstem, domestic fishing(the dominant fishingactivity) occurspredominantly during open-water when theriver is naturally turbid and any increases in turbidity due to development activities would 1 ikely be undetectable. Further,in some situationswhitefish captures actually increased in turbidity plumes associated withdredging activities in Alaska. As a result,thepotential negative effects on fishingsuccess is not considered to be a significant concern.

6.4.7 Mortal i ty From Dredgi ng Machinery

Oneof thegreatest concerns with respect to instreamdredging equipment is thedirect entrainment of fish,particularly juveniles, within the dredging machinery. Suctiondredging has been identified in this regard (Department of Fisheries andOceans 1986). The greatestrisk is during periods of fish migration or spawning. By timingdredging to avoid these periods,the risk can be substantially minimized. Species of particular concern arewhitefish, ci scos, and gray1 i ng, since they represent a significantproportion of the domestic or sportfisheries in the Mackenzie mainstem. In some areas of theriver which are uti1 ized for rearing throughout the summer, possiblyfor northern pike, burbot, or whitefish, this many not be feasible.Therefore site specific fish population information is neededwhere thepotential for gravel removal exists. 0301-34288 Page 57

7 .O FEASIBILITY OF RIVERBED BORROW DEVELOPMENT

7.1 LIMITED DATA BASE

As noted inSection 4.0, most of theinterpretation of riverbedmaterials is based on indirect evidence such asgradient, channel morphology, tributary rivers(size and bed character) and on the uplandgeology. There is a criticalshortage of reliableinstream data andsome of that appears to be very sitespecific. For examples, Public Works Canada (1976) reports that six boreholesencountered only si1ty clay near Norman Wells (see Drawing 4.le); however, ESSO'S experience(Figures 3.2 and 3.3) show that there maybe severalmetres of dredgeablegravel there.

The identification of areas of theriverbed with thepotential to supply granular borrow is somewhathampered by thescarcity of directlyrelevant pub1 i shed information. At Norman We1 1 s, ESSO and itscontractors and engineers have shown that borrow production from theriver is possible. Pub1 i c WorksCanada (1976) has provided 267 boreholes and most of those areclustered in a few areas where rivernavigation might be improved by dredging. The only otherdirect geotechnical data for the riverbed was gathered for sitespecific investigations for pipeline crossings and possibledocksites. Surficial geology maps and notes on navigationcharts prepared by the Canadian Hydrographic Servicealso contain pertinent information on the a1 luvial landforms (islands, bars and ) exposed above water1 i ne.

7.2 RATING THE RIVER

A rating system was developed to evaluatethe contribution made to the potentialfor finding granular borrow in each river zone by thelocal 0301-34288 Page 58

hydro1 ogi c regime and tributaryrivers or streams.Table 7.1 shows the rating factorsassigned to thethree most important characteristics of the hydrologic regime. Table 7.2 shows therelative contribution of each to a cumulative rating. There are two otherfactors that have a significant impact on thepotential development of riverbed borrow. These arethe relativeaccessibility of suitablereserves of upland (conventional 1 granular borrowand theenvironmental sensitivity of each area, particularlyas it relates to fisheriesactivities. Table 7.3 summarizes these two factors and the river regime rating from Tab1 e 7.2.

Table 7.3 provides an overallassessment of the borrow development potentialfor each zone. This information isalso included on Figure 4.1 and Drawing 4.1. One important caution is noteworthy in this overall evaluation of potentialresource areas. As discussed in Section6.3, thereis insufficient data relating to fisheries activities to develop a re1 iable rating of sensitivity for each river zone. Presentlythere is no data which would seem torule out borrow development anywhere on the mainstem of the Mackenzie, but severalconcerns havebeen raised which requireadditional study.

7.3 POTENTIAL AREAS FOR RIVERBED BORROW DEVELOPMENT

The river zones which are between 26 and 176 km long were identified on thebasis of the morphological properties of theriver. Conditions within each zone do vary such that not every sectionwithin the zone is of equal potentialas a source of granular borrow. For that reason, it was decided to analyze a series of 25 km longsubzones. The threefactors whichwere given most weight in these localized evaluations were: a) tributary creeks,streams and rivers with gravel beds (indicating potenti a1 source material 1 0301-34288 Page 59

b) upland borrow sources(a1 ternate economics) c)direct evidence of gravellyalluvium inPublic Works Canada (1976) boreholes

The subzone analysisis summarized on the lower part of Figure 4.1. This indicatesthirteen subzones with a high potential and six with a moderate to high potentialto supply granularriverbed a1 1 uvium.However, the feasibility of development issignificant only where potential supply matches with potential demand. Table 7.4 1 i sts thehighly feasible areas, subject to the economics of haul distance(Section 5 and Figure 5.1) and possiblesources of upland supply thatare more than 15 km inland of the river.

In summary, thereare major portions of theriver where riverbed borrow developmentappears feasible. Table 7.4 identifiesthat along approximately 975 km of the 1475 km length of the Mackenzie (exclusive of theDelta) riverbed borrow is potential ly available where thereare shortages of upland borrow. In fact,if the subzone rating were applied to each bank of theriver separately, becauseupland borrow on one si de cannotreadily be used on theother, more areas might be identified where riverbed borrow development might be feasible.

8 .O RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION WORK

8.1 RIVERBED INVENTORY

As thepreceeding section concluded, there are good reasons to believe that riverbed a1 1 uvium could be potentially developed for borrow materials to satisfylocal shortages along theriver. However, it isalso clear that a significant gap exists between potentialsource areas identified on 0301-34288 Page 60

thebasis of indirect evidence and establishing proven reserves. Recommendations for follow up work arepresented below.

INAC may wish to develop an inventory of potentialreserves of granular materialsor it may wish to focus on identifyingreserves to supply specificareas. Regardless, it appears that directfield/river work is required and many of thesteps are similar in any event.

Initially, a generalsurvey of theriver is required to confirm or extend theinterpretation of potentialareas presented herein. Both geophysical and direct sampling methods arenecessary. The scale of operation and level of effort coul d vary considerably from a broad reconnaissance program examining theentire length of theriver to a more sitespecific one thatconcentrates on establishingthe nature of theriverbed a1 luvium in variousparts of theriver with thehighest potential for future devel oprnent.

The riverbedinventory should focus on theareas identified in Table 7.4 aspotential supply reaches, but it must alsoconsider the need for base1 i ne data a1 ong theenti re river length. Considering the importance of the Mackenzie River,there is very little information about its riverbed, its hydrology or its fish population. A baseline study might significantlyalter some of thisreport's conclusions which are based on so much indirect evidence.

It is suggested that the most effective way to acquirethe baseline data would be for a joint geophysical and geotechnical program, probably working from separateriver craft. The geophysicalsurvey comprising bathymetric,seismic and possibly E-M equipment would searchfor the most promi sing places to sample. The slower moving geotechnical programwould sample thesubstratum to a depth of about 2.5 to 3 m at thesetarget 0301-34288 Page 61

locations. The hydrology and basicfisheries sampling would bedone in conjunction with the geotechni cal base1 i ne sampl i ng.

8.2 NORMAN WELLS FIELD TRIALS

Ifthe field work is to be successful,reliable geophysical methods and sampling techniques mustbe demonstrated where thereis gravelly riverbed alluvium.Since the Norman Wells areaconstitutes the only proven deposits of borrow, there might somebe justificationfor an initial program toevaluate the extent of depositssimilar to thosethat were dredged.

The data base available for Norman We1 1 s would support a trial run for seismic, E-M, ground penetratingradar or other geophysicaltechniques. Simi 1arly a1 ternate reconnaissance level sampl i ng techniques coul d be testedto demonstrate which has a betterability to recoverthe gravelly alluvium. There is a need to sample materialto a depth of 3 m below the riverbed. Grab samplers are unable to do this. Perhaps light Vibra coringtechniques woul d work, economical ly . Demonstrating re1 i able recovery methodswould be a significantpart of a trial program. In other areas of theriver, misleading sample recovery (ie.fine fraction only) would prejudicefuture development.

The sensitivity of the geophysical equipment to different subbottom conditions might a1 so be explorednear Norman We1 1 s. The riverbed changes from glaciomarine clay, to bedrock, to gravelly a1 luvium to si1 ty a1 luvium in thearea. Furthermore thereare sing1 e-channel , deep channel, and mu1 ti-channelreaches within 40 km of Norman We1 1 s. NearGoose and Bear Islands, is the mu1 ti-channelreach. South of Sans Saul t theriver is straight and narrow alongCarcajou Ridge; whereas on thenorth si de it is shallow, and fast atthe rapids and changes to slowand meandering by 1-34288 Page 62 Page 030 1-34288

Dummi t Island. Sing1 e-channelreaches a1 so occurabout 25 km upstream (above Ten Mile Island) and 18 km downstream (below Rader Island). The Rader Islandsection reportedly has a clay til 1 riverbed (Pub1 ic Works Canada, 1976,Northwest Hydraulics, 1979). The Carcajou Ridge section is probably bedrock controlled.

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS

8.3 .I Water Quality

There is very limited sedimentdata available for tracemetals or hydrocarbonsalong the Mackenzie River. Although theeffects ofremoval of granular borrow material from the riverbed is unlikelyto have any measurable effect on theconcentrations of eithermetals or hydrocarbons in thewater column, it would be informative to take samples of thefines content at a1 1 potential borrow sites. This would be relatively inexpensive and requirelittle time oreffort. These sedimentsshould be analysedfor PAH and selectedmetals with unusually high concentrations. A relativelyinexpensive screening method for hydrocarbons using UV/fluorescencecould be used. Based on theseresults and assumptions regardingthe proportion ofany particularvariable that might be released on resuspension, a rough estimatecould bemade of whether an impact on waterquality is likely.Ifthese preliminary calculations suggest a problem, an actualleach test should be conducted.

8.3.2 Hydro1ogy

For any potential dredge site in the Mackenzie Riverthere is aneed for specifichydrologic information pertaining spatialto and temporal 0301-34288 Page63

variation in waterdepth, velocity, volume discharge,stability of banks, width of watercourse, bed type vari abi 1 i ty,flood regimes, etc. within, upstream and/or downstreamof thesite. Thistype of information will be essential in the final evaluation of thepotential effects of granular materials removal on suspended load, bedload movement and fluvial morphology at each specific reach where granular materials may be extracted. It is therefore recommended that during on-si tetesting of potentialsources of granularmaterials, the above hydrologicobservations bemade atspatially representative locations within and adjacent to each of thereaches being testing.

8.3.3 Fisheries8.3.3

Apart from some areas in thevicinity Normanof hells,there is very little information on fishutilization of mainstem habitats within the Mackenzie River. The use of backeddies,side channels and gravelbars neartributaries for spawning and rearingarethe only documented instances in the mainstem. As a resultthere is no analysis of physical habitat characteristics or fishutilization where development of gravel deposits appear possible.Since gravel substrates are commonly utilized for both spawning and rearing,information for theseareas of the mainstem would be required on a sitespecific basis. Baseline data on the use of varioushabitats and timing of fish activities should be collected for the mai nstem.

There are, however, significantdifficulties in identifyinghabitats within large, turbid systems, such as the Mackenzie River, and major field surveys would be required to map largeareas of theriver. Consequently, the nextphase of studies should concentrate on examining only thoseareas whichhave significantpotential for subsequentgravel removal. A systematicexamination of theseareas should includedetailed airphoto and 0301-34288 Page 64

mapping exercises to identifyprobable habitat characteristics on a large scale. In addition, selectedprofiles of depths and substrates should be prepared in pre-determi ned lengths of thesereaches. If feasible, selected sampling (gillnetting and seining)should be conducted atleast threetimes during theyear to assesssite specific utilization. If i nstream activitiesare more 1 i kely during winter,studies should a1 so occur prior to freeze-up to assessoverwintering potential in the mainstem reaches.

9 .o CLOSURE

The evaluation of thefeasibi 1 i ty of developinggranular borrow from the Mackenzie Riverbed has requiredthe assistance of severalsubconsultants and theinput from a wide range of industry and government personnel. Recognition of those firms and individuals is provided in Appendix C.

This study has demonstrated thefeasibility of producingriverbed gravel for construction borrow uses. There was not, however,enough direct evidence,except adjacent to Norman Wells, conclusivelyto prove developablereserves anywhere. This lack of directdata is remarkable considering that the Mackenzie is one of thelargest rivers in Canada and thatthe river is a vitalaccess corridor to the frontier resources of the Beaufort Sea.

The economics of riverbeddredging and 1 ong di stance barge hauling of granularmaterials appears to justifyfurther examination of theriverbed. The study has identifiedparts of the Mackenzie Valley whichhave shortages of conventional borrow within 15 km of theriverbanks. A substantial number of thoseareas could benefit from the use of riverbed derived borrow. 0301-34288 Page 65

The environmental concerns relatingto riverbed dredging have a1 so been considered.Primarily, these relate to the impact of dredging on the seasonal use of theriver by fishpopulations. Unfortunately, the level of baselinedata on mainstem fishactivities isclearly inadequate. A1 though no evidence was uncovered to precludethe development of riverbed granularresources anywhere on theriver, site specific studies are needed beforesignificant development couldtake place.

In conclusion, it appears thatriverbed granular borrow development is both feasible and potentially economic. In some areas it may even be necessary if major construction is contemplated. Itis not possible,at thisstage, to identifyspecific source areas or potential dredge sites and it is not possible to predictthe impact of dredging on the important fishlife of theriver. Clearly baseline geologic data and fisheries relateddata must be acquiredbefore development of thispotentially valuableresource can proceed. 0301-34288 Page 66

Prepared by:

EBA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD.

.. . .. N.R. MacLeod, P.Eng.

NRM: jms 301-34288 Page 1

REFERENCES

ArcticLaboratories Limited, ESL EnvironmentalSciences Limited and EBA EngineeringConsultants Limited in association with Tekmarine Inc, 1985. Environmental assessment of dredgingtechnologies. Prepared for EnvironmentalProtection Service. Environment Canada, Yellowknife, N.W.T., 95pp.

Brunskill G.J., D.M. Rosenberg, N.B. Snow,G.L. Vascottoand R.W. Wagemam, 1973. Ecologicalstudies theofaquatic systems thein Mackenzie-Porcupinedrainages in re1 ation to preposed pipe1 in andhighway developments.Environmental-Social Committee, Northern Pipelines. Task Force on Northern Oil Development,Winnipeg. Report No. 73-40,131 pp.

Brunskill G.J., -P. Campbell, S.E.M. Elliott, B.W. Graham, W.J. Dentryand R. Wagemann, 1975.The chemistry,minerology and rates of transport of sediments inthe Mackenzieand Porcupine River watersheds, N.W.T. and Yukon,1971-1973. Environment Canada, Fisheries andMarine Servi ce , Winnipeg.Technical Report No. 546,69 pp.

Campbell P., J. Dentry, G.W. Morden, S. Elliott, G.J. Brunskill, R. Wagemann, B.W. Graham, 1975.General physical and chemical data for water andsediment ofthe Mackenzie and Porcupine watersheds and rates of transport of dissolvedand suspended elements atselected stations in the Mackenzieand Porcupine watersheds 1971-74, Part 1. TechnicalReport NO. 556 preparedbyEnvironment Canada, Fisheries andMarine Service, 302 pp.

CanadianHydrographic Services, 1983-1986. Mackenzie River Navigational Charts No. 6404 to 6426. 301-34288 Page 2

REFERENCES

Canadian Marine TransportationAdministration, 1972. Effect of proposed dredging on water levels, Mackenzie River, N.W.T., Phase 1. Ministry of Transport, Ottawa, 23 pp plusappendices.

Chang-KueK.T.J. and R.A. Cameron, 1980. A survey of thefish resources Of theGreat Bear River, N.W.T. Fisheries and Marine Service, Western Region, Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Winnipeg. Manuscript Report No. 151, 59 pp.

Church M., 1971. Reconnaissance of hydro1 ogy and fluvialcharacteristics of rivers in the Mackenzie Valley, N.W.T., and in . Prepared for Mackenzie Val leyPipel ine Research Limited. 48 pp plus figures.

Church M., and Gilbert R., 1975. Progl acialfl uvi a1 and lacustrine envi ronments in gl aci of 1 uvi a1 and gl aci 01 acustri ne sedimentation. Soc. of Econ. Paleontalogists and MineralogistsSpecial Publication No. 23. A.V. Jobling and B.C. McDonal d.

Code J.A., 1973. The stability of naturalslopes in the Mackenzie Valley. Envi ronmental-Social Comi ttee, Northern Pipel ines, Task Force on Northern Oi1 Development. Report No. 73-9, 18 pp. plus maps.

Davies K.F., 1974. Hydrometric data summary Mackenzie Riverbasin 1973. Prepared by Water Survey of Canada, Department of the Environment forthe Environmental-Social Program Northern Pipelines. 84 pp.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1986. Fraser River Dredging Guide1 ines.Draft Copy. DFO Fisheries and Habitat Management Branch. Pacific and Yukon Region, New Westminster, B.C. 15 pp. 301-34288 Page 3

REFERENCES

Department Indianof Affairs andNorthern Development (DIAND)/MPS AssociatesLimited, 1973. Regional impact of a northern gas pipe1i ne. Vol . 5. Environmental-Social Commi ttee.Northern Pipel ines TaskForce on Northern Oi 1 Development.Report No. 73-32.

Dirschl H.J., 1975.Mackenzie Valley andnorthern Yukon pipelines, regionalanalysis. Envi ronmental-Soci a1 Committee,Northern Pipel ines, Task Forceon Northern Oil Development.Unpublished report Vol. 1.

Dome PetroleumLimited, ESSO Resources Canada Limited andGulf Resources Inc.,1980. Mackenzie Valley Setting. Inenvironmental impact statement forhydrocarbon development inthe Beaufort Sea - MackenzieDelta Region. Vol 3c.

Dome PetroleumLimited, ESSO Resources Canada Limited andGulf Canada ResourcesInc., 1982. Environmental impact statement forhydrocarbon development inthe Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Deltaregion, research and monitoring.Vol. 7.

Doran L.D., 1974. Fish andAquatic Systems. Environmental impact assessment of theportion ofthe Mackenzie Gas Pipeline fromAlaska to Alberta.Environmental Protection Board, Winnipeg. Vol . IV, Chapter 8, 205-268 pp.

Dryden R.L., B.G. Sutherlandand J.N. Stein,1973. An evaluationof the fishresources ofthe Mackenzie River Valley as relatedto pipeline development.Environmental-Social Committee, Northern Pipelines Task Force on Northern Oil Development,Fisheries Service, Department of the Environment,Winnipeg. Report No. 73-2,176 pp. 301-34288 Page 4

REFERENCES

EBA, 1973. Mackenziehighway geotechnicalevaluation, Fort GoodHope to Norman Wells, N.W.T. A reportsubmitted to Public Works Canada.

EBA, 1974. Granularmaterials inventory Stage 11.I A reportsubmitted to Indian and Northern Affairs.

EBA, 1978. Geotechnicalinvestigation for drilling islands, Norman Wells N.W.T. A report submitted to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd. (EBA Project NO. 11-2113).

EBA, 1980. Geotechnicalengineering overview ofMackenzie Val ey1 route data. A reportsubmitted thetoPolar Gas Project. (EBA Project NO. 101-2591 1.

EBA, 1983. Granularresource development managementand plan for Tuktoyaktuk. A reportsubmitted to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

EBA, 1985. Constructionverification, artificial islands andberms, Norman Wells Oilfield Expansion project. A reportsubmitted to Canada Oil and GasLands Administration. (DSS Contract No. OGT84-00609). (EBA Project No. 101A-4173).

Envirocon Limited, 1980. Survey of benthicmacroinvertebrate and fish populations in the Mackenzie River at Norman Wells, N.W.T. Prepared for ESSO Resources Canada Limited, Cal gary.

Envi rocon Limited, 1981. A survey of fish rearingareas and hydrocarbon analysis of water samples from the Mackenzie Rivernear Norman Wells, N.W.T. Prepared for ESSO Resources Canada Lirni ted, Calgary. 32 pp. 301-34288 Page 5

REFERENCES

Environment Canada,1960-1979. Water qualitydata Mackenzie Riverbasin. Prepared by Inland Waters Directoratefor the Mackenzie River Basin Committee. 1080 pp.

Environment Canada, 1982.Sediment datareference index. Prepared by InlandWaters Directorate. 47 pp.

Environment Canada, 1983. Historicalwater levels summaryYukon and N.W.T. Prepared by In1and Waters Directorate. 37 pp.

Environment Canada, 1983.Sediment data Canadian rivers. Prepared by InlandWaters Directorate. 233 pp.

Environment Canada, 1983. Surfacewater data reference index. Prepared by InlandWaters Directorate. 386 pp.

Environment Canada, 1984. Historicalstreamflow summaryYukon and N.W.T. Prepared by InlandWaters Directorate. 128 pp.

Environment Canada, 1985. Surfacewater data Yukon and N.W.T. Prepared by Inland Waters Directorate. 110 pp.

Erickson P. and B. Fowler,1986. The flux of suspended particulates, petroleumre1 ated hydrocarbons, tracemetals and nutrients from the Mackenzie River during the winter season, a pi 1 ot studyof the East Channel. A reportprepared for the Department of Indian and Northern Development, Ottawa. 123 pp plus appendices. 301-34288 Page 6

REFERENCES

ESSO Resources Canada Limited, 1980. Norman Wells oilfield expansion. Environmentalimpact statement. Oil field development. ESSO Resources Canada Limited, Edmonton.Vol . 2 (n.p. ).

ESSO Resources Canada Limited, 1980. Norman Wells oilfield expansion, environmentalimpact statement. Oilfield Development. Vol. 2.

ESSO, 1982. Norman Wells Project,dredging operations plan 1983-1984. Dataprepared in support of ESSO's Water LicenceApplication to the Water ResourcesDivision, Department of Indianand Northern Affairs.

Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd., 1979. The Dempster highway lateral gas pipeline project, environmentalimpact statement. Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd., Calgary. Vol . 4, 632 pp.

Forstner U. and G.T.W. Wittmann, 1979. Metal pollution in the aquatic environment. Springer Verl ag, Berlin.

FOX M.F. , 1979. An exploratorystudy of fluvial sites and processes in the Mackenzie, Liard and lower Fort Ne1 son rivers. Part 1. Overview of erosion and deposition. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa. Vol . 1.

Geological Survey of Canada, 1969. Map of the physiographicregions of Canada. (Number 1254A). 301-34288 Page 7

REFERENCES

Geological Survey Canadaof 1972and 1973. Reconnaissance granular resourceinventory of the Mackenzie Val 1ey. Reports forIndian and Northern Affairs.

Hardy Associates(1978) Ltd., 1982. Engineering recommendations for BosworthCreek and Great Bear Rivercrossings.

Hardy Associates(1978) Ltd., 1979. Preliminaryenvironmental impact assessment, NormanWe1 1 s development plan.Prepared for EssoResources Canada Limited.

Hardy Associates(1978) Ltd., 1986. Granularresource potential, Lower Mackenzie Valley. A reportsubmitted to Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

Hatfield C.T., J .N. Stein, M.R. Falk and C.S. Jessop, 1972a. Fish resources of the Mackenzie River Val ley. Environment Canada. Fisheries Service, Winnipeg. Interim Report I, Vol. 1, 249 pp.

Hatfiel d C.T., J .N. Stein, M.R. Fa1 k, C.S. Jessop and D .N Shepherd, 19728. Fish resources of the Mackenzie River Val ley, Department of Environment, FisheriesService, Winnipeg. InterimReport I, Vol. 11, 289 pp.

Heginbottom J .A., 1978. Third International Conference on Permafrost, Edmonton, Alberta.Field Trip No. 3, Lower Mackenzie RiverValley. Geological Survey ofCanada. 66 pp. plusappendices. 301-34288 Page 8

REFERENCES

Hollingshead G.W. and L.A. Rundquist, 1977. Morphologyof the Mackenzie Deltachannels. Third NationalHydrotechnical Conference. Canadian Societyfor Civil Engineers, Lava1 University, Quebec.309-326 pp.

Hughes, O., 1970. Surficial geology maps. GSC Open File No. 26.

Hughes O.L., J .J. Veil lette, J. Pillon, P.T. Hanleyand R.O. van Everdi ngen, 1973. Terrain evaluation with respecttopipeline construction, Mackenzie tranportationcorridor. Central part, Lat. 64 to 68 N. Envi ronmental -Social Committee, NorthernPipe1 i nes, Task Force on NorthernOil Development. Report No. 73-37, 74 pp.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and OceansCanada, Government of the and the Yukon Territorial Government, 1986. Mackenzie environmentalmonitoring project 1985-86 FinalReport. 308 pp. plusappendices.

Inland Waters Directorate, 1980. Historical sedimentdata summary, Canadian rivers,to 1978. Inland Waters Directorate, Water Resources Branch, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa.

Inland Waters Directorate,Yellowknife, 1985. Hydrology information series. Prepared by Western EcologicalSerivces Ltd., Victoria, B.C. Mackenzie Delta;Aklavik; Fort Norman; Carcajou ; Mahony Lake; Norman We1 1s; Travaillant Lake; Arctic Red River;Fort McPherson; Ontaratue River; Fort GoodHope; SansSaul t Rapids. 301-34288 Page 9

REFERENCES

InterprovincialPipe Line (NU) Ltd., 1984a. Post constructionmonitoring programs forthe Norman Wells to Zama pipeline.

InterprovincialPipe Line (NW) Ltd., 1984b. Water qualitymonitoring in relationto 1984 pipe1 ine construction. 14 pp.

ISaacs, R., 1974. Geotechnical studies of permafrost in the Fort Good Hope-Norman Wells Region, N.W.T. Report 74-16, Environmental-Social Committee, Northern Pipelines, Task Force on NorthernOil Development.

Jessop C .S., K .T.J . Chang-Kue, J .W. Li 11ey and R.J . Percy, 1974. A furtherevaluation of thefish resources of the Mackenzie RiverValley as re1 ated to pi pel i ne development. Envi ronmental -Soci a1 Program. Northern Pipe1 i nes Task Force on Northern Oi 1 Development. Report No. 74-7, 95 PP*

Jessop C.S. and J.W. Lilley, 1975. An evaluation of thefisheries resources of the Mackenzie River Valley based on 1974 data.Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Envi ronment, Winnipeg. TechnicalReport Series CEN/T-75-6.97 pp.

Kenny, T.C., 1976. Formation and geotechnicalcharacteristics of glacial-lake varved soils. From Laurits Bjerrum MemorialVolume - Contributions to Soil Mechanics, ed. Jambu, Jorstand and Kjea, NGI, Oslo.

Kindle E.M. and T.D. Bosworth, 1920. Geological Survey ofCanada Summary Report. 301-34288 Page 10

REFERENCES

Komex,1981. Norman Wells expansion project, 1981subsurface investigations.

Komex, 1982(a). Norman We1 1 s expansionproject, 1982 geotechnical investigations. A reportsubmitted to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd. (Komex File No. 921-2).

Komex, 1982(b). Norman Wellsexpansion project, settlement of artificial islandhydraul ic sand fill. RevisedApril, 1982. A reportsubmitted to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd. (Komex File No. 944).

Komex-Geocon, 1980(a). Norman Wellsexpansion project, 1980 geotechnical investigations.Interim data report. Submitted to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd.

Komex-Geocon, 1980(b). Norman Wellsexpansion project, 1980 geotechnical investigations. A reportsubmitted to ESSO Resources Canada Ltd.

Kurfurst, P., 1973. Terraindisturbance susceptibility, Norman Wells area,Mackenzi e Val 1 ey.Report 73-24 Envi ronmental -Soci a1 Cornittee, NorthernPipelines, Task Force on Northern Oi 1 Development.

LGL Limited, ESL EnvironmentalSciences Limited, ESSA Environmentaland Social Systems AnalystsLimited and P.J. UsherConsulting Services Limited, 1986. Citedunder Indian and Northern Affairs Canada et dl, 1986. 301-34288 Page 11

REFERENCES

Levinson A.A., B. Hi tchon and S.W. Reeder, 1969. Major element composition of the Mackenzie River at Norman Wells, N.W.T., Canada. Geochimica et Cosmochimica. Acta 33:133-138 pp.

Lombard North Group Ltd., 1974.Environmental impact study, Mackenzie Highway, Mile 550-725. Field ResearchReport. Prepared for Department of Public Works,Edmonton. Vol. 1, (variouspaging).

Mackay D.K., 1967. Discharge of theLiard andMackenzie ri vers. Geographical Bulletin, 9 (1): 11-19 pp.

Mackay J .R., 1972. Applications of watertemperatures to the problem of lateral mixing in theGreat Bear-Mackenzie River system. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 9: 913-917 pp.

Mackay J.R., andMathews, W., 1973. Geomorphology and QuaternaryHistory of the Mackenzie RiverValley near Fort GoodHope, N.W.T., Canada.Can. Journalof Earth Sciences 10, 26.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report. 231 pp.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement 2, alluvial ecosystems. 129 pp. blackenzie RiverBasin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement3, spring break-up. 301-34288 Page 12

REFERENCES

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement 4,hydrometeorologic network design. 101 pp.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report. A report under the 1978-81 Federal-Provincial Study Agreement respectingthe water and selectedresources of the Mackenzie RiverBasin. 231 pp. plus 9 supplement volumes.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement 5, hydrometeorologic network design, background reports.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1981. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement 8,daily hydrologic model user manual.184 pp.

Mackenzie River Basin Committee, 1985. Mackenzie Riverbasin study report supplement 9, waterquality. 201 pp.

Maclaren PlansearchLimited, 1985. Unpublished data from the Mackenzie River.

McCart P.J. and D. de Graaf, 1974. Effects of disturbance on benthic fauna of small streams in thevicinity of Norman Wells, N.W.T. P.J. McCart (ed. ), Fisheriesresearch associated with proposed gas pipe1 ine routesin Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories.Arctic Gas Biological Report Series 15(4). 29 pp. 301-34288 Page 13

REFERENCES

McCart P.J., 1974. Latewinter surveys of lakes and streams in Canadaand Alaskaalong the gas pipelineroutes under consideration by Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd., 1972-73. P.J. McCart (ed.),Fisheries research associated with proposedgas pipeline routes in Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories.Arctic Gas BiologicalReport Series 15( 1). 183 pp plus maps.

McCart P.J., and J. Den Beste, 1979. Aquaticresources of the Northwest Territories. Prepared for the Science Advisory Boardof the N .W.T., Yellowknife. 55 pp.

McCart P.J ., W Griffi ths, C. Gossen, H. Bainand D. Tripp, 1974. Catalogue of lakes and streams in Canada alongroutes of the proposed Arctic Gas pipel ine from the Alaskan/Canadian border to the 60th para1 le1 . Arctic Gas BiologicalReport Series 16. 251 pp. plusappendices.

McCart D. and P.J. McCart, 1982. Latewinter surveys of aquaticresources alongthe IPL Pipeline Route, Norman Wells, N.W.T. to Zama Terminal, Alberta.Prepared forInterprovincial Pipe Line (NW) Ltd., by Aquatic Environments Limited,Calgary. 28 pp. plus maps.

McPhailandJ.D. C.C. Lindsey, 1970. The freshwaterfishes of north-western Canadaand Alaska. Fisheries Resources BoardCanadaof Bulletin 173. 381 pp.

Nagy E., CareyJ .H., Hart J .H., Ongl ey E. and Tisdal e J ., 1986. Hydrocarbons in Mackenzie River Suspended Sediments.National Water Research Institute,Burlington Ontario. NWRI Contribution 86 - 65. 301-34288 Page 14

REFERENCES

Mann G.J ., 1975. Winter fisheries surveyacross the Mackenzie Delta. P.C. Craig (ed.),Fisheries investigations in a coastalregion of the Beaufort Sea. Arctic Gas BiologicalReport Series 34(3). 54 pp.

Neil 1 C.R., 1973. Technical report on aerialreconnaissance and study recommendations forrivers in the Mackenzie Basin N.W.T. Hydrologic assessments of northern pipe1 ine development. Envi ronmental -Soci a1 Committee, Northern Pipelines, Task Force on Northern Oil Development. Report73.3, 259-312 pp.

Northwest HydraulicConsultants Ltd., 1979. Regimeof Mackenzie River at Norman Wells in relation to artificialisland scheme. Preparedfor ESSO Resources Canada Ltd. 39 pp.

Northwest HydraulicConsultants Ltd., 1982. Hydraulic effects of proposed dredging in Mackenzie Rivernear the Ramparts. Preparedfor Public Works Canada, Edmonton.Vol. 1.

Pemcan Services, 1972. Granularmaterials inventory done for DIAND.

Ri ver i nvestigati on, prepared navi gati on channel improvements, test drilling program. Report to the Design and Construction Branch.

Reading, H.G., 1978. Sedimentaryenvironments and facies.Elsevier Publishers, .

Reconnaissance granularresource inventory on the Mackenzie Valley for Indian and Northern Affairs by theGeological Survey of Canada, 1972 and 1973. 301-34288 Page 15

REFERENCES

Reeder S.W., 1973. Annual waterquality report of the Mackenzie River DrainageBasin. Report 73-12.

Reeder S.W., B. Hitchon and A.A. Levinson,1972. Hydrogeochemistry of the surfacewater of the Mackenzie Riverdrainage basin, Canada. I-Factors controllinginorganic composition. Geochem.Cosmochem. Acta 36:825-865 pp.

Reid K .W., H.O. B1 ockand J .T. Chapman, 1975.Water qual i ty investigations in the Mackenzi e Basin with speci a1 referenceto the potentialfor impai rment ofwater quality by pipe1ine orroad construction. Report 74-45. Envi ronmental-Social Committee, Northern Pipeline Task Force on Northern Oil Development. Information Canada, Ottawa.

Reineckand Singh, 1975. Depositionalsed imentary envi ronments, Springer-VorlagPublishers, New York.

Renewable Resources Consul ti ng Services L td., 1978. Envi ronmental review and assessment proposed Mackenzie Riverdredging project. Prepared for Pub1 i c WorksCanada and Department of Transport, Edmonton. VOl 2, 838 pp.

Rutter, N.W., Boydell, A.N., Savigny, K .W. and Van Everdingen, R.O., 1973. Terrainevaluation with respectpipelineto construction, Mackenzie TransportationCorridor, Southern Part.Report submitted theto Envi ronmental -Soci a1Program for Northern Pi pel i nes, Task Force on Northern Oi 1 Development. I 301-34288 Page 16

REFERENCES

Stein J .N., C .S. Jessop, T.R. Porter and K .T.J . Chang-Kue, 1973. Fish resources of the Mackenzi e River Val 1 ey . Envi ronmental -Soci a1 Program, Northern Pipelines Task Force on Northern Oil Development. Interim Report11, 260 pp.

Water Quality Branch, 1983. Mackenzie River Basinwater quality interpretive report.Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Yellowknife.Final Draft. Vol. Id (variouspaging).

Water Survey of Canada, 1977. Miscellaneousstream flow measurements in Alberta and Northwest Territories, 1894-1976. Department of Environment, Water Resources Branch, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa.

Water Survey of Canada, 1983. Historicalstreamflow summary,Yukon and NorthwestTerritories, 1982. Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa.115 pp.

Water Survey of Canada, 1983. data reference index, Canada, 1983. Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa. 386 pp.

Water Survey of Canada, 1984. Sediment data Canadian rivers, 1982. Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate, Water Survey of Canada, Ottawa. 268 pp. 301-34288 Page 17

REFERENCES

Zallen My 1984. Effects of pipelineconstruction on juveniles and incubating eggs of mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni Girard) in the Moyie River, B.C. A.F. Crabtree(ed.), Proceedings of theThird I nternational Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Right-of-Way Management February15-18, 1982, San Diego, CA. 488-498 pp. 0301-34288

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIVER ZONES

TABLE 4.2 MACKENZIERIVER TERRAIN ANDBORROW SUMMARY (BY ZONE)

TABLE 5.1 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (BY ZONE)

TABLE 5.2 ANTICIPATED GRANULAR BORROW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAJOR MACKENZIEVALLEY COMMUNITIES

TABLE 5.3 COST COMPARISON FOR CONVENTIONAL AND RIVERBED BORROW PRODUCTION

TABLE 6.1 SUMMARY OF DISCHARGE RECORDSFOR THEMACKENZIE RIVER TO 1984

TABLE 6.2 FISHSPECIES LOCATED WITHIN THE MACKENZIEVALLEY STUDY AREA

TABLE 6.3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL HARVEST OF THE MACKENZIEVALLEY DOMESTIC FISHERIES

TABLE 6.4 REACH ZONES WITHSIGNIFICANT FISHERIES ACTIVITIES

TABLE 7.1 RATING SYSTEM FOR THE GRANULAR MATERIALS POTENTIAL OF THERIVER ZONES

TABLE 7.2 EVALUATION OF RIVERREGIME CHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

TABLE 7.3 RIVERBED BORROW POTENTIAL FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

TABLE 7.4 AREAS WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF RIVERBED BORROW APPEARS FEASIBLE I I I 1 J I I f i I I I 1 I 1 I I t I

0301 -34288

TABLE4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIVER ZONES

R I VER R I VERI NT S ZONE K I LOMETRE MAP NO POST I NG BOUNDARIESGEOGRAPHIC GEOGRAPHIC SHEETS FEATURES

0 GreatSlave Lake 85F SouthChannel 26 Westslde of BlgIsland

II 85F BeaverLake 60 Westend of BeaverLake

Ill 85ESF ProvldenceRapids 107 ProvldenceFort79) LakeMIIls (km and River Horn

IV 85E MI I Is Lake 130 Westend of Mi I Is Lake

V 85E,95H 229 Trout R I ver

VI 95H Jean-MarieRiver (km 270) 300 RabbitskinRiver GreenIsland Raplds (km 320)

VI I 95H 6 J LlardRiver, Ft.Slmpson (krn 340) 410 East of Burnt Is1 and

VIII 95 J CamsellBend (km 461) 520 WillowlakeRlver McGernIsland (km 492-514)

IX 95J 6 0 RlverBetween Two Mountalns(km 538) 580 WrlgleyRiver Wrlgiey (km 574)

X 950 6 N Ochre R. (km605), Johnson R. (km635) 665 BlackwaterRlver

XI 95N,96CDahadlnnl Rlver (km678) 714 RedstoneRlver I I 1 t I 1 I f 1 i i 1

0301 -34288

TABLE 4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIVER ZONES

R I VER R I VERI NTS ZONE K I LOMETRE MAP NO POST I NG BOUNDARIESGEOGRAPHIC FEATURESGEOGRAPHIC SHEETS

XI I 96C Sallne Is. (km7241, Keele R. (km737) 828 GreatBear Rlver FortNorman (km 827)

XI I I 96C,D6E Norman We I I s (km9051 966 PatrlclaIsland

XIV 96E,106H 101 7 SansSault Rapids MountalnRlver (km 1015) xv 106H d I DummltIsland (km 1020-1026) 1087 Entranceto Ramparts xv I 106 I 1098 Exlt to Ramparts FortGood Hope (km 1101)

XVI I 1061, JbO OntaratueRiver (km 1200) 1261 North of LlttleChlcago

XVI I1 1060N 6 ThunderR.(km1299) Travalllant R.(km1327) 14 38 Lower RampartsLower 1438

IX 106N 1454)ArctlcRlver(kmRed 14 75 Polnt SeparationPolnt 1475

Note: 1) Kllometrepostlngs are Interpreted from the Mackenzle Rlver Navlgatlonal Charts prepared by the CanadianHydrographlc Servlce. Chart Numbers 6404 to 6426. I 1 t I I i I t t I I I I I I t I I J

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 1 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE I 0-26 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHY R I VER UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS LANDFOWS

A) *: <157 m to

D)ibutary TrRivers: none C) AI luviai deposits silt and sand C) Organicdeposits overlie fine- grained glacloiacusiri ne mater1 ai E) Currentin channel 1.5 to 4 knots D) River banks low relief and till

E) Boreholes show till In channel D) Scatteredpermafrost beneath organics F)*Low potential for granularmaterial In this stretch E)*No pod uplandsources of granular mater I al

*Comments relativeto granular material sources f # I f I 1 I 1 I I f I i I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 2 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN AN) BORROW sur44 ARY (RIVER ZONE 1 I 26-60 km)

LANDFORM S UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLAND LANDFORMSR 1 VER TOPOGRAPHYUPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS

A) &: BigIsland <156 m; Beaver A) Stralght Channel - expanded In A) Flatplain adJacent torlver Sam as SectIon I Lake 153 m BeaverLake

E) Width: 4-11 km E) Islandsat Junction with Ne channel; submerged bars C) Depth: -5-4 m C) Low relief rlver banks D) TributaryRivers: north channel D) 6 boreholes show tlll; 1 shows sand

E)*Low potential for granularmaterial in this stretch

*camentsrelative to granular material sources. f t I 1 I I I I I I J I f 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 3 MACKENZ IE R 1 VER TERRA1 N AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE Ill 60-107 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHY R 1 VER LANDFORMS UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS

A) E:<153 m at km 60 to 143.5 m A) Dlvlded Channel - BraidedRlver A) Undulatlngto flat plain adJacent A) Bedrock: Sandstone, shalebeneath at Mills Lake to rlver til I and glaciolacustrine material 8) Islands - Meridian,Providence, B)Width: 2-10 km widest where Green, Whltlock,Misson B) Glaclolacustrine plain deposits channe11 divides overliemralne plaln deposits. C) Alluvlaldeposits to 153 m Totalthlckness of these C) Depth: <1 m-14 m; usually .2-6 m Quaternarymaterials Is 12-20 in deep D) AI luvlaldeposits of silt and sandy; some gravel C) Organlc deposlts overlie f I ne- 0) Deeper : channelsBeaver Lake to gralnd moraine plain tll I and Fort Prov 1dence E) Rlver bank low re1ief; 153 m glaclolacustrine silt and clay contour marks break with up I and E) TributaryRivers: Bluefish, Horn 0) Scatteredpermafrost beneath F)Providence Rapids organ ICdepos its F) Currentvelocity in channels 3.5- 5 knotsexcept Providence Raplds G) Many boreholes show sand and E)*Onl y source of granular mater1 a1 where it is 4.5-8.5 knots gravel along MacKenzle Hwy. 10+ km south

H)*Moderate to highpotential for granularmaterial in this sect I on

+Comments relativeto granular material sources. I I I t t 1 1 I I I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE4.2 Page 4 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRA1 N AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE IV 107-130 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY UPLAM)RIVER LANDFORMS TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFOWS

~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~

A) &: 143.5 m A) Expanded Stralqht Channel - Lake A) Same as Zone I I I A) Same as Zone I I I

B) Wldth: 6-17 km Lacustrlne/Alluvlal B) Pla n depos,Its

C) Depth: .2-6 m C) AlluvlaldeposltsPlaln of SI It and f Ine sand D) Deeper channel off HornRlver S. centralpart of lake D) Rlver bank low re1 lef; 53 m contour marks break w Ith up land

E) Boreholes show sllty and clay

F)*Low potentlal for granularmaterlal Inthls sectlon

*Comments relativeto granular material sources. i 1 I f I 1 1 i I I 1 t I f I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 5 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE V 130-229 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) E:143.5 Mills Lake to 141 m A) Stralqht Channel A) plainUndulatlngflat to A) Shale, Sandstone in lowlandby at km 228.5 river; I Imestonealong escarpment B) AlluvialPlaln and terracedeposlts B) Upland area Horn Plateau 75 km to 7-25 km S. ofriver; Sandstoneand B) Width: 1-4 km to 153 m N. shale In HornPlateau

C) Depth: 2-12 m; usually 2-8 m C) AI luvlaldeposits of silt and sand C) Low ridges (240 to 300 m) B)Glaclolacustrlne plaln and veneer represent 1 ng shore1 I nes of GIac 1 a1 deposi ts (up to 5 m thick) over I le D) Deeper: channel - BouvierRlver 0) Two very smal I unnamed islands Lake McConnel I r 158 s I Ight I y above moralnaldeposits to Redknife River the gIacloIacustrIne/moraine plain E) River banks low relief N. of rlverthe C) Totaldepth of glaciolacustrlne E) TrlbutaryRivers: and tll I is 12-20 m Bouvier(gravel bed) F) 153 m contourmarks break w Ith D) Escarpment of I imestonerock I les Trout(gravel bed) up I and 7 to 25 kmrlver S. of D) Organicdeposits overlie til I and Redknlfe(gravel bed) glaclolacustrinematerials. Axe C. G)*Posslblegravel inriver near muth Scatteredpermafrost beneath Small Axe C. ofgravel bed tributaries,le; organ 1 cs Wal lace C. Trout,Redknlfe, Bouvier. Skull C. E)*Uplandgranular material In Morrisey C. H) Low to moderate potentialfor beaches and alongescarpmnt In Hair Stand C. granularmaterlal in river glaciofluvialdeposits Several unnamed creeks

‘Comments re1 atlve to granular material sources. t 1 1 1 I t I I t 1 i I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 6 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE Vi 229-300 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHY R I VER RIVER LANDFORMS LANDFORMS UPLM UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY

A) E W. of TroutRlver 141 m to A) Stralght Channel A) SlmliarSectlonto V A) Slml lar to Section V except RabbitsklnRlver 137 m B) AI luvlaiplain and terracedeposits 1) Fewer giaciolacush-ine depos its 6) Wldth:km .75-1.5 to 153 m overlie tlll on N. side of R Iver

C) Depth: 2-15 m C) Aiiuvlaldeposits of sandy si It, 21 Glaclolacustrine and morainal also till on river bed deposi ts on1 y 12 m th Ick N. of D) Deeper channel; Jean Marie Creek r I vet- to Cache I D) Some boreholes show granular al luvlum 3) Giacloiacustrine deposlts - over E) TrlbutaryRivers: tlll very thick (20m) S. of Rlver Jean Marie(gravel bed) E) Rlver banks show some re1 ref - Spence cutbanks Spence R iver to 4) Dunes developed on glacfolacustrine Rabbltskln Rlver materlal S. ofrlver

5) Extenslvehigh ice content perma- frost In glaclolacush-lnematerial and t i I I w Ith organ ICcover

+Comments relative to granularmaterial sources. t I i i 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 7 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUCIMARY (RIVER ZONE VI1 300-410 km)

R I VER TOPOGRAPHYLANDFORMS UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS

A) e:E. of Rabbltskin 137 m to A) Stralght Channel: 3 MlnorMultl- A) Undulatlngto flat plaln W. of A) Bedrock:Shale, Sandstone In low of Burnt IslandBurnt E. of (120 m channel stretches near land r I ver r I ver

8) Width: 1.5-3 km 8) Alluvlaldeposits to 153 m B) Flatplaln wlth dunes S. of rlver B) Shaleand Sandstone InEbbutt and Martin HI I Is C) Depth: 1-10 m usually 2-7 C) Near RabbitsklnRiver 3 terrace C) 152 m representsglaclolacustrine/ levelsrepresenting old rlver tlll boundary N. ofriver; 213 m C) Moralnaldeposlts above 152 m N. D) TrlbutaryRlvers: on S. slde of rlverriver;of above 213 m S. of rlver Li ard D) Islands(all small) Green, Hanson, Harr I s Martln,Ft. Slmpson, 5 unnamed D) MartinHllls rlse above plalnto S. D) Glaclolacusklnedeposits Mart 1 n thlckest S. ofrlver Trai I E) Alluvialplaln and terracedeposits E) EbbuttHIIIs rlse above plalnto N. Several unnamed creeks and of sand si It E) Dunes on glaclolacustrlneplain

F) Rlverbottcm In till; boulder F) Quaternarydeposlts 12 m thick N. pavement (6 m tilI/bedrock) ofrlver, 12-20 m S. of rlver

G) River banks high and steep G) lntermlttenthigh ice content part icuI ar I y S. sl de permafrostbeneath organlcs In f Ine-gralned deposits H) Green IslandRaplds H)*Onlyseveral upland granular I ) Som boreholes show gravelnear depositsassociated wlth Green IslandRaplds glaclof luvlal and al luvial terraces J)*Low potential for granularmaterlal Inriver except downstream of Green Island Rapids

*Comments relatlveto granular materlal sources t I t 1 1 I I t 1 1 1 t i 1 I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 8 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE VI I I 410-520 km)

R 1 VER TOPOGRAPHY R 1 VER LANDFORMS UPLANDTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) BraldedRiver A) Undulatingto rolling moralne plaln A) Bedrock: Shale, Sandstonenear E. ofrlver; flat glaciolacustrine river;Llmestone in Camsel I Range 8) Alluvlalplaln and terracedeposits and moraine plain W. of river B)Width: 1-6.5 km; wldestin areas to 153 m 8) TIII and glaciolacustrinedeposlts ofmultichannels B) Glaciolacustrine deposits to 300 m overlie bedrock (12-20 m thlck) C) Islands (many) - 22 unnamed. Also E. and W. of rlver C) Depth: 1-10 m; usual ly 2-7 m McGern, Barry, and BurntIsland C) Low-Moderate icecontents In C) Camsel I Range W. of river 10-30 km lntermlttentpermafrost except D) TrlbutaryRivers: 0) Alluvialdeposits of sand, sllt, where organlcs over I le f ine-gralned Nahannl (gravel bed) gravel D) Oldrlver channel E. of Mackenzie til I and glaciolacustrine Root(gravel bed) Rlvernear Camsell Bend Willowlake(gravel bed) E)*McGern Island has gravelin lower D)*A few largescattered glaclo- alluvlalplain; also gravelin fluvialgranular deposits hlgherelev. from WII lowlakeRlver partlculariy near Wit lowlake sources River andRoot River

F) Some steepbanks on W. and S. side of river

G) Some boreholesnear McGern Island and BurntIsland show gravel

H)*High potential for granular materialin this sectlon

*Comments relativeto granular material sources. I 1 1 t f I 1 f t I I I 1 I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 9 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRA1 N AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE IX 520-580 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) & W. WillowlakeRiver (105 m A) Straight Channel Transitlonalto A) Rollingto rldged plain; minor A) Bedrock: Shale, Sandstonenear to WrlgleyRlver (95 m BraidedRiver sectionsof flat pialn E. of river;Limestone and Dolmlte In Mackenz I e Camsell and McConneli Ranges B) Width: 1-2.5 km B) A few alluvlalislands 8) Flatto unduiatlng plain W. of B) Drumlinoidmralne, moraine plain, C) Depth: 1-10 m C) Islands:Fort,Old 7 small unnamed r Iver and glaciolacustrlnedeposlts 5- isI ands 30 m thick E. of Mackenzle River D) Deepest sectionFish Trap Creek C) McConneli Ranga IO km E. of river to Wrlgley to D) Alluvialdepositsto 153 m C) Moraineplaln and hummcky mraine D) Camsell Range 30 km W. of river deposits W. of rlver E) TrlbutaryRivers: E) Moderate to hlgh banksnear rlver River-Between-Two-Mountains D)*Large glaciof luvial terrace of (gravelF) bed) Alluvialdepositsof sand, silt sand and gravelnear Wrigley. Wrlgley(gravel bed) possiblerlvermlnorgravel In Glaciofluvlaldeposits of sand/ Flsh TrapCreek (gravel bed) depositsnear mouth River-of gravelnear River-Between-Two Hodgson Creek Between-Two-Mountains and Wrigley Mount a I ns Moose Pasture Creek R Iver E) I nterml ttent to extensive penna- G)*Moderate potentlal for gravelIn frost th is stretch

*Comments relative to granularmaterial sources I I i t f I I I I 1 1 1 3 1 I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE4.2 Page 10 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN ANDBORROW SUMMARY (R I VER ZONE X 580-665 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHYR IVER RIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) WrlgleyRiver <95 m A) Straight Channel A) Flatglaciolacustrlne and moraine A) Bedrock: permafrostsandstone, Blackwater Rlver <90 m plaindeposits flli narrow valley shalenear rlver; Dolomite, B) No alluvialislands (20 km wlde)between McConnelI I imestone in Camsel I Range; B) Width: .75-1 km Rlver and WrlgleyPlateau Sandstone, shaleIn Wrlgley C) Steepbanks PI ateau C) Depth: 1 -18 m mostly 2-7 m except B) Minorcreeks are deeply incised as deepest channe Is D)*Aliuvialterraces of silt, sand, theyexit McConnell Range and 8) Moralnal and giaciolacustrine some gravel to 153 m Wrlgley Plateau plaln deposlts 5-30 m Dl TributaryRivers: (ai I gravel beds) E)*Glaciofiuvlalterraces of sand/ C) Thickorganics developed on fine Ochre gravelat higher elev. between graineddeposlts Johnson Dam Creek and BlackwaterRiver Blackwater D) HlghIce conterrt permafrost in Eetseemoday F)*Highpotential for gravelin this flne-grainedorganic covered MountainPeople C. sectionparticularly near Ochre deposits - Intermlttent to ThreeFinger C. River,Blackwater River outlets extensiveIn this region Mountain Sand C. Whlte Sand C. E)*Glaciofluvial sand and gravel in Dam C. up land near Ochre, Johnson, Phi I I IPSC. B I ackwater R lvers Gashoday C.

*Comments relatlve to granularmaterial sources I f f 1 I I I 1 I I f I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 11 MACKENZ IE R 1 VER TERRAIN ANDBORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE X 665-714 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHY R I VER TOPOGRAPHYUPLAND LANDFORMS R I VER UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) BlackwaterRiver <90 m to A) Straight Channel Transitionalto A) Flatgiaclolacustrine and moraine A) Bedrock:Shale and Sandstone in <75 m RedstoneBraided RiverRlver plain in valley between McConnel I valley and WrlgleyPlateau; River and WrigleyPlateau Limestoneand Dolomite in McConnel i 6) Width: .5 to 3.5 km; w'idest near B) AlluvialIslands - Birch I, Range BirchIsland 6 unnamed B) Val ley widerthan inSection X eg: 40 km B) Morainal and glaciolacustrlne C) Depth: .5 to 18 m; mos tiy 1-8 m C) Moderatelysteep banks especially deposits 5-30 m thick nearDahadinni River C) Fiatglaciofluviai anda1 luvial D) TributaryRivers: terraces to 150 mt C) Fairlyextensive permafrost in (ai I gravel beds) D)*Aiiuvlaldeposlts of silt, sand; f Ine-gra 1 ned depos I ts Dahadinni some gravelin these deposits from D) Oldmeltwater channels E. of Redstone Blackwaterto Dahadinni River Mackenzle, S. ofBlrch I D)*Largeglaciofluvial deposits in Saline terracesnear Redstone and Nodaddy C. E) Some boreholes show gravel and sand BlackwaterRivers; Also smai I Several unnamed creeks upstreamof Birch I scattereddeposits associated with glaciofluvlalchannels on mraine F)*Moderate tohigh potentlal for plaln granularmaterial In this section especially nearBlackwater, DahadinniRiver and Blrch I at S. end of zone

*Comments re1 ative to granularmaterial sources I f I I I 1 i 1 I I I

0301 -34288 4.2 TABLE Page 12 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRAIN AN2BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XI I 714-828 km)

LANDFORM S UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLAND LANDFORMSRIVER TOPOGRAPHYUPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS

-Elev: at Redstone Rlver <75 m and A) Braided River - Transltlonal to A) Flatto rol IIngmoralne plaln A) Bedrock: Shale, Sandstone Inrlver at BearGreat (60 m ing deposits above 153 m; flatglaclo- val ley; LImestone/DoIomIte In Iacustrlne plain below 153 m mountai ns Wldth: 1 to 12 km; wldestin B) Meander Cut-OffIslands - very vlcinlty of alluvialislands largeincluding 6 large unnamed B) McConnel I RangdFrank I In Mtns. 15- €3) Morainaldeposits mre canmon fran formed by meander cut-offs islands andIce Pol I km 25 E. of rlver Redstone Rivet- to Blg Sml th Creek

Depth: .5-12 m; usually 1-7 m C) Also many smallIslands - 18 In C) MacKay Range km25 W. of rlver C) Glaciolacustrlnedeposits mre number canmon; BigSmith Creek to Great Tr I butary R Ivers: D) Numerous thawlakes In glaclo- Bear Rlver Keele(gravel bed) D)+Al luvlaldeposlts are mstly sl It Iacustrlnedeposlts Llttle Blrch and sand; some gravelIn the D) Dunes on giaclolacustrlnedeposlts Blg Smlth Creek (gravel bed) islandsfrom Redstone Rlver to Little SmithCreek (gravel bed) Big SmithCreek; some gravel N. of E) Organlcs and extenslvepermafrost Keele RiverIn islands; also gravel assoclatedwith flne-gralned reported on charts nearSeagull I depos 1 ts and Inboreholes near Great Bear R I ver F)*Smal I scattered glaclof luvlal deposits - especlally near Llttle E) 1 borehole shows gravelnear SmlthCreek; few granulardeposlts SalineIsland; 1 downstream of fran Llttle Smith Creek to Great RedstoneRlver; 2 boreholes show Bear RIver thlngravel over tll I and shale just upstream of GreatBear Rlver

F)*Moderate potential for borrow In rlver. Upland sources are smal I and scatteredwlth some permafrost

+Comments relatlveto granular materlal sources I 1 I 1 I t I I t I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 13 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRA1 N AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XI 11 828-966 km)

VER TOPOGRAPHYR 1 VER RIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) &: at GreatBear <60 m at A) BraidedRiver A) Norman Range (BearRock) atriver; A) Bedrock: Shale, Sandstone in low- Patricia I <45 m E. side of river Norman Range 0- land;Limestone in Mackenrie and B) Numerous Islands; Windy, Gaudet, 5 km fran river; W. 32 km to Norman ranges B) Width: 1.5 to 6.5 km; widestin Halfway, Ten Mile, Bear, Goose, Mackenzie Mountains vicinity of islands Rader, Ogilvie,Judith,Perry, B) Bedrockshal low beneath mralnal, Stanley,Willard, Patricia, Six B) Mostly flat to rolling narrow plain gIacloIacustr1 ne mater1 ais C) Depth: 2-11 m; usually 2-8 m; Mile, Mac, 4 unnamed between twomountain ranges 1-4 m near islands C)*AIluvlalplain deposits to 90 m C) Islandsmostly of sand and silt C) Stretchesof f latglaclolacustrlne alongriver; these may have minor D) TributaryRivers and Creeks: plain below 120 m grave I (allgravel beds) D)*Gravel ly al luvial deposits at Great Bear, Little Bear, mouth of Little BearRiver, D) Beach rl dges at 120 m DIuLargeglaciofluvlal plain near Slatter Rivers possibly Oscar Creek and other Little BaarRiver; also alluvlal creeks E) Flatto sloping msralnal plain and fan deposits beh Ind Kee Scarp Creeks : veneeredbedrock above 120 m (a1 I gravelbeds)E)"Gravel in channeldeposits - E)*Scattered smal I granularglacio- Jung le Ridge, Vermillion,Ridge,Jungle Esso F) Deeply incisedcreeks; E. ofriver fluvialdeposits along streams in Prohlbltlon,Christina, Helva, uplands Francis, Canyon, Joe, Bosworth,F) 6 boreholes show silty clay till Billy, Oscar, Elliott,Bluefish, (4 m) overshale right near Norman F)+Granularmaterials In beach ridge MacKay,Bogg, Stewart, Loon, Ray, We1 Is depos 1 ts Devo,Windy, Fair G)*Moderate to highpotential for G)*Chanm ofgranular mater1 a1 in gravelIn river in thls section; terraces on W. side ofriver gravel bed trl butarysources of gravel H)*Large glaciofluvialdeposit up GreatBear Rlver 10 to 15 km known as IBennett Flel dl

I) Fairlycontlnuous permafrost

*Comments relativeto granular material sources i r 1 i 1 t

0301 -34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 14 MACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XIV 966-1017 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY RTOPOGRAPHY IVER UPLAND LANDFORMS UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) Patrlcia I <45 m to A) Straight Channel Transitionalto A) FrankllnMountains (CarcaJou Ridge A) Shaie/Sandstone inMackenzie Plaln kbuntain River (40 m RiverBraided andMountain)border East E. side W. ofriver and In lowlandsbetween ofriver; with one flat plain CarcaJouRidge and E. Mountain 8) Width: .75 to 3 km; widestat 8) islandsAxel I, 2 unnamed section adJ acent to rlver Axel I B)*Sand and gravelglaciofluviai and Cl Aliuvlaldeposits of sand and sllt 8)Flat glaclolacustrlne plain and fine-grainedgiaciolacustrine C) Depth: 1-19 m; shallowestnear undu I at Ing mraI ne veneered bedrock deposltsin flat plain between Axel I D)*Gravel inalluvial deposits near to W. of river in MackenzlePlain CarcajcuRidge and E. Mountain Mounta in R Iver D) TributaryRivers: C) Mora ine veneeredbedrock W. of CarcaJou(gravel bed) E) Steepbanks rlver Patricia I to MaIda Creek Mountain(gravel bed) MaidaCreek F)*Moderate potent la1 for granu lar D) Giaciolacustrinefran Maida Trapper Creek material,especially near Mtn. River Creek to Mounta In River where gravelis coarse-grained E)*Gravel in river at San Saulttest site

F)*Extensivecoarse-grained giacio- fluvialdeposits >10 km up Mounta In R Iver

G) Fairlycontinuous permafrost

+Comments relat ive to granular material sources 1 1 t 1 I f I I t f i t I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 15 MACKENZ IE RIVER TERRAIN AND BORROWSUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XV 1017-1087 km)

LANDFORM S UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLAND LANDFORMSR I VER TOPOGRAPHY UPLAND TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS

A) MountainRiver C40 m to A) BraldedRiver A) Flatglaciolacustrine plain A) Sandstoneand Shale In lowlands; Ramparts <30 m (Anderson Plaln) E. sideof river Limestone in lowlandfran Spruce B) Numerous Is. incld.: Dummit, Hanna, wlthseveral ridges of Franklin Mts. Is land to the Ramparts; Limestone B)Wldth: 1.5 to 5 km N. Hanna, Hardie, Hume, Spruce, (Beavertai I Mtn. and Bat HI I Is) in Beavertail Mtn. and Bat HI1 Is 1 i unnamed C) Depth: .5-12 m; usually .5-7 m B) Flat glaciolacustrine plain W. of B) Giaclolacustrine plain of sand, C)*AIluvialdeposits sanddsilt except river/PeeIPlain silt,clay (thick) with organics D) TributaryRivers: downstream of San SaultRapids where and fairlycontinuous permafrost (nogravel beds exceptpossibly sanddgravel is presenton Dummit Is. C) Thaw lakes and permafrostin giacio- Donnelly River) b between Dummit and Hardie Is. lacustrine plain C) No granularmaterlal in upland Hanna areas except al I uvl al terrace s I It/ Donne I I y D) Steepbanks lnglaciolacustrine clay sand Ts i ntu from San Sauit to Spruce I Ramparts D)*Glaciofluvlalor alluvial Class 2 Hume E) Steep banks in bedrockfrom Spruce I deposits(Hardy Assoc.) W. of SnafuCreek to Ramparts rlver near Ramparts. Th is zone and Zone XVI F) SanSau It b RampartsRapids E) Extens ive permafrost G) 2 boreholes show gravelupstream of DonnellyRiver; probe holes show gravelnear Dummit Is.

H)*Moderate tohigh potential for gravelin the southern 15 km ofthls section;particularly downstream of San SauitRapids near Dummit is. d Donnelly R. therest of the area will probably be mstly sandy and of low to moderate potent 1 a I

+Comments relativeto granular material sources I 1 I I t I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 16 MACKENZ IE RIVERTERRAIN AND BORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XVI 1087-1098 km)

R 1 VERTOPOGRAPHY TWOGRAPHY UPLANDRIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDLANDFOfiMS

A) E: S. endRamparts

*Comments re1 ative to granular material sources I 1 t I I I I t f I t

0301-34288 TABLE4.2 Page17 MIACKENZIE RIVER TERRAIN ANDBORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XVI I 1098-1261 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY R I VER LANDFORMS UPLANDTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS .. A) e:N. end Ramparts 28 m to A) BraidedRiver A) Flat moraine plain E. of river from A) Sandstone;Shale, Limestone In low- K.P. 1261 c23 m N. end of Ramparts to PayneCreek lands B) Numerous large 6 smallislands (Anderson Plain) B) Wldth: 1-5 km; widestIn multi- Includlng: Manitou, Askew, Bryan, B) Limestoneexposed in higher river channelareas 23unnamed; same shallowbars B) Flatglaciolacustrine plain adJacent banksfrom Ft. GoodHope to to river on W. side;also on E. Askew I C) Depth: .5-23 m; usually 1-19 m C)*AI luvial deposits of sand/si It; sidefrom PayneCreek to N. of and 1-4 m near islands possfblegravel near Tleda River Llttle Chlcago C) Morainedeposits of till; glaclo- from charts lacustrine deposits of si It/sand D) TributaryRivers: C) Thaw lakes and permafrostfeatures HareIndian (gravel bed) D) Steepbanks in I imestonefrom inmorainal 6 glaciolacustrine D)*Scattered glaciof luvial deposits Loon (gravel bed) Ft. GoodHope to Askew Is I ands plaln on mralne plaln Tieda(gravel bed) GI1 Is E) Moderatebanks Askew Islands to N. E)*Largeupland sandand gravel Ontaratue of Little Chicago glaciofluvlaldeposit near E. of Gossage rfver at Ft. Good Hope Payne Creek F)*Low to moderate potential for gravelin river; most alluvial F)*Most otherupland deposits are deposits wl I I be sandy small and arenear Tleda and Loon R I vers

G) Some glaciofluvlalmaterlal possible on W. slde of Mackenzle Rlvernear Yeltea Lake outlet

*Comments relativeto granular material sources I t t I I i I t 1 I I I I 1 I t

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 18 MACKENZIERIVER TERRAIN ANDBORROW SUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XVI I I 1261-1438 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY RIVER LANDFORMS UPLANDTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) km 1261 <23 m to Loner A) BraidedRiver Transitional to A) Flat glaciolacustrlne pialn E.bW. A) Sandstone shalein lowland Ramparts <21 m Stra 1 ght Channe I of rlver frun K.P. 1261 to Rabbl t- Hay River B) Sandstone insteeper banks frm 8) Width: 2-4 km, widestin muiti- B) AlluvialIslands - 11 unnamed of 1350 km to Arctic Red River channelareas silt, sand B) Flat to rolling mraine plaln E. and W. fran Rabbit-HayRlver to C) Morainaldeposits of till; glacio- C) Depth: .5-20 m usual ly 1-7 m C) Many partially submerged islands Arct Ic Red R I ver I acustr ine depos its of s I I t/sand of sand, silt 23 total D) TributaryRivers C) Thaw lakes and permafrostfeatures D)*Scatteredglaclofluvial deposits on Travaillant D) Steepbanks in sandstone/shale Inglaclolacustrlne and moraine mraine plain - eg:near Thunder Thunder (gravelbed) from 1350 km toArctlc Red Rlver plaln Rlver (E.and W. of Mackenzle Tree River 1 and the Lower Ramparts, and Rabbit-Hay E) Moderatebanks 1350 km to Ft. Rabbi t Hay River Pierre Creek GoodHope Adam Creek E) Falrlycontinuous permafrost Fat Rabbit Creek F)"Low potential for gravelin river; Benoit Creek most alluvialdeposlts wil I be sandy

"Comments relativeto granular materlal sources I f I I I t J I I 1 I I t I I 1 I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 4.2 Page 19 MACKENZIERIVER TERRAIN AND BORROWSUMMARY (RIVER ZONE XIX 1438-1475 km)

R I VERTOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS R I VER TOPOGRAPHY UPLANDLANDFORMS

A) &: <21 m Lower Ramparts to A) Stralqht Channel A) Rol toling hummocky moralneArctic A) Shale In lowlands (20 m Pt. Separatlon Red Riverarea B) Severalsmall alluvialbars of sand €3) Steeper banks Inshale 6) Wldth: 1 km belowLowerRamparts 8) Thaw lakes and permafrostIn hummcky moraine C) Morainaldeposlts In tlll C) Depth: 1-23 m; usually 1-12 m C) Steepbanks inshale C) Moralneplaln (flat) downstrean D)*Scatteredglaclofluvlal deposlts D) utary Rlvers: D)*Low potentlal for gravel In rlverof Arctlc Red Rlverto Pt. In mralne plaln and hummcky Arct ICRed exceptposslbly In channelbelow Separat Ion mora Ine, eg: esker near ArdIc Tsia I Trel n Creek Lower Ramparts Red RIver

E)Frog Creek glaciofluvlal complex >10 km S.W. of ArdIc Red River

F) Falrlycontfnuous permafrost

*Comments relatlveto granular material sources t 1 t I f I I t f f f I i I f I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page1 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AN) CHANNEL DEPOSITS (Rlver Zone I 0-26 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS* DATARIVERBED

K I LOMETFE BAN( BCREHOLES4/ E ST I MATED3 POST I NG EPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVERHYDROGRAPHIC VOLUME (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) OBSERVAT I ONS MATER I AL

No known deposlts 0 N3. 3, 4, 5, 6 Sandy SI I ty, Clay TI1 I 5 No. 19 TI1 I 10 TI1 No. 34 I 15 No. 44 Til I 20 No. 52 TI1 I 25 NO. 66 Til I

1 ) Up I anddepos Its greater than 15 km from the r 1 verhave not been cons1dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quant Itynot determined. 4)Publlc Works Canada, 1976. 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 2 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RI ver Zone I I 26-60 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIAL$ DATARIVERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN( ESTIMATED3 BCREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER va-uME I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

No known deposlts 29 No. 82 Til I 36 No. 127 Silty Clay 40 No. 114 SiltyClay 45 No. 102 SIIty Clay 55 N3. 2 eavel ly SI I ty Sand 60 NO. 99 Sllty Clay

1) Up I and depositsgreater than 15 km from the rl verhave not been cons1dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4) Public Works Canada, 1976. 1- 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1

0301 -34288 TABLE5.1 Page 3 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AFD CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RIver Zone I I I 60-1 07 km)

RESERVES OFGRANULAR KNOWN MATERIAL$ RDATA I VERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN< BCREHOLES4/ EST1 MATED3 POST ING IT EPOS RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER HYDROGRAPHVOLUME I C (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (lull) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS IAL

No known deposits 59-63 Strewnboulders 6 gravelIn shallow water left b rlght banks 65 NO. 96 Sand b Gravel 66-72 Shal low water with bou I ders 6 gravel ledges left 6 rlght banks 73 NO. 19 Sand 6 Gravel 82 No. 31 Sand 6 Gravel 07 No. 37 Clayey Sand d Gravel 99 NO. 39 TI1 I 105 No. 42 SlltyClay w/ Gravel

1)Upland deposlts greater than 15 km fran the rlverhave not been considered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4) PublIc Works Canada, 1976. I f i I i I t I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 4 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND1 ANDCHANNEL DEPOSITS (RI ver Zone IV 107-1 30 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ DATARIVERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< EST1 MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ MATED3 EST1 BAN< K I LOMETRE POS TING DEPOSITPOSTING RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RI VER vauE DROGRAPH HY I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (rn3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

No known deposlts 128 No. 84 SlltyClay

1)Upland deposlts greater than 15 km from therlver havenot been considered. 2) Perncan 1972. 3) N/D - Quant ltynot determlned. 4) Publlc Works Canada, 1976. I I I 1 I f I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page5 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AN) CHANNEL DEPOSITS (Ri verZone V 130-229 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS* DATARIVERBED

LO METFE BAN< K I LOMETFE BCREHOLES4/E ST I MATED3 POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RI VER HYDROGRAPHICVOLUME (km) NlMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

No known deposits 155-170 Sand near left bank between trlbutaries of al I uv I urn-Axe Cr.- Bouv I er Cr . 188 AI luvium L Mlnorsand 6 gravel TrlbutoryRedknlfe N/D River 219 AI luvlum L Minorsand 6 gravel TrlbutoryTrout R. N/D

1 ) Uplanddeposlts greater than 15 km from theriver havenot beencons1 &red. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - @antity not determined. 4) PublIc Works Canada, 1976. i t I I I I I 1 I I I t I I E I i I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 6 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' ANDCHANNEL DEPOSITS (RiverZone VI 229-300 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS~ RDATA I VERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< K ILOMETRE B(XIEHOLES4/E ST I MATED3 POST1 NG DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVERDROGRAPH HY VOLUME I C (km) NlMBER (R) (L) MATER IAL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

No knowndepos Its 269 No. 16 Sand h Clay w/ Gravel 216 No. 75 Sand h Clay n/ Wave I 298 NO. 48 Sandy Clay w/ Grave I

1 ) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km from the r lverhave not beencons1 dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - WantItynot determlned. 4)Public Works Canada, 1976. I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 i i 1 I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 7 MACKENZlEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (River Zone VI1 300-393 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS~ DATAR I VERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN< EST IMATED3 BOREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOS I T LEFTRIGHT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HY DROGR APH I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

No known deposlts 305 Elo. 55 3' Sandy Gravel over TII I 314 No. 64 Sllly Sands w/ Q-avel 322 NO. 69 Sand d Flne Gravel 324 NO. 75 Sand 6 Gravel 334 FS- 1 L Sand 6 Gravel 3 km S. of 500,000 Ft. Slmpson along Lalrd R. N. slde FS- 1 1 L Sand d SI It 4 km S. Ft. Slmpson N/D S. sldeLlard R. 335 Sand 6 Gravel left bank, Intersection w/ Llard R. just S. ofFt. Slmpson 336-347 FS-3 L Flne Sand 1 Unl lmlted 340-344 Left Bank- Is le Sand 340-352 FS- 12 R Sand 6 Gravel 0 .o N/D 342-349 FS-13 R Grave I 1.5 1,500,000 347-350 FS-8 L Flne Sand 4 15,000,000 Left Bank Sand 35 3 Left Bank-Shore1 1 neGravel 355 FS-7 L Flne Sand 3-6 2,000,000 360 P101 R Sandy Gravel 0.0 N/D 366 P102 R Sandy Gravel 0 .o N/D 369-370 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 310-313 P103 L Sand 6 Gravel 1.5 N/D 315 P104 R Flne Sand 3.5 N/ D 383 P105 R Fine Sand 5.5 N/ D 39 3 Left Bank Sand

1 ) Up I and depos Its greater than 15 km from the rlver have not been cons1dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quant Itynot determined. 4)PublIc WorksCanada, 1976. 9 1 i i 1 i 1 I i I i I I I I I 1

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 8 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND1 AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RiverZone VI I 393-41 0 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIAL$ DATAR I VERBED

LO METRE BAN< K I LOMETRE BCREHOLES4/E ST I MATED3 POST1 ffi DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCEHYDROGRAPHI FROMVOLUME RI VER C (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROeSERVATlONS I AL

394 P107 394 R Si Ity Sand 0.5 N/D SandLeft Bank 398 P106 R Fine Sand 5.0 N/D Mld-Channel 6 Sand Left Bank-isle 400-408 SandLeft Bank 407 P109 R Silty Sand 0.5 N/D

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand 17,000,000+N/D L Sand d Gravel 500,00O+N/D Zone Borrow Summary R Fine Sand N/D R Sand 6 Gravel l,500,000+N/D

1)Upland deposits greater than 15 km from theriver have nat been considered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determined. 4) Public Works Canada, 1976. I I I I f i I I i 1 i I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 9 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' ANDCHANNEL DEPOSITS (Rl verZone VI I I 41 0-516 km)

RESERVESGRANULAR OF KNOWN MATERIAL$ DATARIVERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN< E ST I MATED3 BCREHOLE S4/ POST I NG EPOS IT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NlMBER (R) (L1 MATER I AL (km) (m3) OBSERVATIONS MATER I AL

410 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 413 P1 IO R SiltyFlne Sand 0.5 N/D 416 Plll R Si I ty Sand 0.5 N/D 417 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 422 NO. 60 Sand 4 30 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 430-441 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 455 Left Bank Sand d Gravel 457 460 No. 56 Sand d Gravel 468 Mld-Channel-Isle Gravel 410 Mld-Channel-Isle Gravel 493 NO. 55 SI Ity Sand 495 PI 29 R Sand d Gravel McGern I s. N/D 498 No. 4 Sand 499 No. 5 Flne Sand 501 NO. 51 Sand-Clay Til I 502.5 No. 7 5' Sandy Gravel, over TI1 I 506 NO. 50 Til I 509 P135 R Sllty Sand 5.5 N/D 510 P134 R Si I ty Sand 2 N/D 510 P136 R GravelSilty 5 N/D No. 46 Sand d Gravel 512 Left Bank Sand 512.5 P139 R Sand d Gravel 6.5 500,000 No. 45 Sand d Gravel 514.5 P140 R Flne Sand 3.5 3,000,000 515 N3. 31 Sllty Sand 516 P133 Is le Sand d Gravel

1) Up I anddepos Its greater than 15 km from the river have not beencons1 dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determlned. 4) Public WorksCanada, 1976. I 1 I 1 1 i I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page10 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RI verZone VI I I 516-520 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ R DATAI VERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< EST BAN< K I LOMETRE BOREHOLES4/ I MATED3 PO STING DEPOSITPOSTING RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VaUM HYDROGRAPH I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

516-518 Left Bank- Is le Sand 517 No. 30 Til I 519 P141 R Sand 6 Gravel 11 N/D

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand No known depos Its L Sand 6 Gravel

ZoneBorrow Summary R Flne Sand 3,000,000+N/D R Sand d Gravel 500,00O+N/D

1)Upland deposlts greater than 15 km from therlver have not been considered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determlned. 4)Publlc Works Canada, 1976. I 1 f I f i i I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page11 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AN) CHANNEL DEPOSITS (River Zone XI 520-577 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ RDATA I VERBED

BAN< EST1 MATED3 BOREHOLES4/ MATED3 EST1 K I LOMETRE BAN< POST I ffi DEPOS IT LEFTRIGHT D ISTANCEDROGRAPH HY FROM VOLUME RI VER I C (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

532 P142 Sand b Gravel 5 3,000,000 5 36 P143 Sandy Gravel 7 1,000,000 5 37 P144 Sand 6 Gravel 3 N/D 5 40 P146 Sand 6 Gravel 4 600,000 540 P148 Sand 6 Gravel 7 N/D 542 P147 Sand 6 Gravel 1 N/ D 547 P151 Sand 6 Gravel 3.5 1,500,000 5 49 P150 Sand 6 Gravel 6 N/D 550 P152 Sand 1.5 N/D 55 1 Left Bank Sand 6 Gravel 553 P153 R Gravel 4 3,000,000 554.3 P154 R Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 10 ,000,000 556 P155 L Sand b Gravel 0.5 N/D 556 P156 R SI Ity Sand 6 Gravel 4 N/D 560 Pi57 R Silty Sand 6 Gravel 8 N/D 560-565 LeftBank-Isle Sand 6 Gravel 562 e5 P158 R Si Ity Sand 6 Gravel 7 N/D 564 w1 R Sandy Gravel 0 5,000,000 565 -5 w 20 L Gravel 0.5 200,000 566 w3 R Gravel Silty 1.5 1,000,000 567 -5 w11 R Sandy Gravel 0 150,000 569 w2 R Sandy Gravel 0.5 40,000,000 57 1-582 LeftBank-Wrigley R. Gravel Intersect ion 573 w5 R Sandy Gravel 0.5 10,000,000 574 575 W6 R Sandy Gravel 0.5 1,000,000 576 w10 R Sandy Gravel 2 300,000 577 w7 R Sand b Gravel 4.5 250,000

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km fromthe rlver have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determined. 4)Public Works Canada, 1976. I t I I I I I 1 I I I t I I I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 12 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AN) CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rlver Zone XI 577-580 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ DATARIVERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< K I LOMETRE EST1 MATED3 BOREHOLES4/ PO STING DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE LEFT RIGHT DEPOSIT POSTING FROM RIVER VOLUM HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS IAL

577.5 W13 R Sandy Gravel 0 -06 1,000,000 579 w12 R Sandy Gravel 0 600,000 580

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand L Sand 6 Gravel 200,00@tN/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Fine Sand N/D R Sand 6 Gravel 78,400,000+N/D

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km from theriver have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan1972. 3) N/D - Quant itynot determined. 4) Public WorksCanada, 1976. t I t i 1 I 1 I I'I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 13 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (Ri ver Zone X 580-664.5 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS~ R I VERBED DATA

LOM ETRE BAN( K I LOMETRE ' E ST I MATED3 BOREHOLES4/ POSTING DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPH I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER IAL (km) (m3) OBSERVATIONS MATER IAL

90 P159 5 90 R Sand d Gravel 8 1,000,000 602 L PI 63 Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 N/D 604 P164 604 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 1,500,000 605 P165 605 R Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 N/D 606 P168 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 3,000,000 61 2 P169 R Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 1,000,000 61 3 P170 R Sand 6 Gravel 0 e5 2,000,000 613 P171 L Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 N/D 614 P172 614 R Sand b Gravel 4 N/ D 618 P174 R Sand b Gravel 6 N/D 625 P176 625 R Sand 6 Gravel 0 e5 10,000,000 629 P177 R Sand b Gravel 0 250,000 632 P178 R Sand d Gravel 0 2,000,000 635 636 P179 636 L SI Ity SandWD 0.5 6 37 P180 637 L Sand d Gravel 0 -5 N/D 644 P183 GravelR SIIty 1.5 1,000,000 649 P184 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 1,500,000 655 P185 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 2,500,000 66 1 P191 R Sand 6 Gravel 5 20,000,000 663 P190 R Sand b Gravel 1 10,000,000 6 64 P189 664 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 50,000 664 e5 L P186 Sand 6 Gravel 0 N/D Rlght bank Inter- Grave I sect Ion w/ Blackwater R.

Zone Borrow L Fine Sand N/D Summary L Flne Sand N/ D

Zone Borrow R Flne Sand N/D Summary R Sand d Gravel 55.8x106/m3+N/D

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km from therlver have not been considered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quant itynot determined. 4) Public Works Canada, 1976. t I 1 f I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 14 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND1 AN) CHANNELDEPOSITS (River Zone XI 664.5-712.5 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ RDATA I VERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN( E ST I MATED3 BOREHOLES4/ POST I NGDISTANCE DEPOSIT LEFT RIGHT FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

665 P188 R Sand 6 Gravel 0 N/ D 666 P187 L Sand 6 Gravel 0 N/D 669 Mld-Channel R. Bend Grave I 671 P194 R Sand 6 Gravel 1 N/D 672 P195 R Sand 6 Gravel 2 10,000,000 677 Left Bank lnter- Grave I section w/ Dahadinnl R. 678 P193 R SI Ity Sand 12 N/D 681 P196 R Sand d Gravel 3.5 40,000,000 688 Rlght Bank Sand 6 Gravel 690 P197 R Sand 6 Gravel 4.5 15,000,000 No. 9 SI I ty Sand over Gravel 695 No. 11 Sand 6 Gravel 696 P200 R Sand 6 Gravel 13 N/D 696 5 Mid-channel Grave I 697.5 P209 R Fine Sand 2 3,000,000 698 -5 P201 R Sand 6 Gravel 11 N/D 700 P203 R Sand 6 Gravel 10 N/D 702 P202 R Sand 6 Gravel 15.1 N/D 702 P208 R Si Ity Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 N/D 702 e5 P210 L SI Ity Sand 0.5 N/D 703 P204 R Sand b Gravel 9 N/D 705 P205 R Si Ity Sand 8 N/D 710 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 71 1 P211 R Sand 6 Gravel 5 N/D 71 1-722 Left Bank- I s le Grave I Intersect ion w/ Redstone R. 712.5 P212 R Sand 7 N/D 712.5 P213 R Sand 3 5,000,000

1) Up landdeposits greater than 15 km fromthe r 1 verhave not been cons1dered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determlned. 4) Pub1 Ic Works Canada, 1976. I I f I I I 1 t I 1 t I 1 1 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 15 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND’ AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (R1 verZone XI 71 2.5-71 4.5 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ DATARIVERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< K I LOMETRE BOREHOLES4/ EST1 MATED3 PO STING DEPOSITPOSTING RIGHTDISTANCE LEFT HYDROGRAPHFROMVOLUlrE RI VER I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

714 P214 714 R Sand 1 N/ 0 714.5 P216 L SI Ity Sand 1 N/D 714.5 P215 R SI Ity Sand 2 N/D

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand N/D L Sand 6 Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand R Sand 6 Gravel

1)Upland deposits greater than 15 km from therlver have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4) PublIc Works Canada, 1976. t I I I I I I i I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 16 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AN) CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RlverZone XI1 714.5-763 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ RDATA IVERBED

LOM ETRE BAN< K I LOMETRE BOREHOLES4/E ST 1 MATED3 POST1 MG DEPOS I T RIGHTDISTANCE LEFT FROM RIVER HYDROGRAPHICVOLUME (km) NCMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

717 P219 R Sand b Gravel 12 N/ D 718 P217 R Sand d Gravel 0 N/ D 722-730 RlghtBank-Isle Grave I 7 24 P222 L SI ity Sand 0 N/D 7 25 No. 14 Sand 6 Gravel 730-737 Left Bank- Is le Grave I 7 30 P224 R Sand & Gravel 11 2,000,000 7 32 P223 L Silty Sand 0.5 N/D 133 P225 R Sand b Gravel 10 N/D 7 35 P229 L SI Ity Sand 2 N/D 7 38 P228 R Sand b Gravel 2 8,000,000 7 38 P230 L SIIty Sand 3 N/ D 739-742 Mid-Channel-Isle Gravel 7 40 P227 R Sand b Gravel 5 25,000,000 740 P23 1 R Sand 2.5 N/D 743 P233 R Sand 6 Gravel 14 N/D Left Bank Gravel 744-747 Mld-Channel Gravel 144 P232 R Sand b Gravel 10 500,000 745 P235 R Sand b Gravel 15 N/ D 747-153 Rlght Bank-Isle Sand b Gravel 752 P241 R Gravel ly Sand 12 N/D 753 P236 R Sand b Gravel 11 N/D 754-758 Left Bank- Is le Gravel 755 P24 3 Sand b SIIt 7 WD 756.5 P237 SI Ity Sand 10 N/D 756.5 P24 2 Sand d Gravel 8 N/ D 758 P238 Si Ity Sand 10 N/ D 7 59 P239 Si Ity Sand 10 N/D 760 P244 Si Ity Sand 3 N/D Mld-Channel Sand 7 63 P240 Silty Sand 8 N/D 763 P245 SI Ity Sand 6 N/D

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km fromthe rlver have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4)PublIc Works Canada, 1976. 1 t f 1 I i I I I i 1 1 1 I 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 17 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND1 AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rl ver Zone X I I 763-824 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWNGRANULAR MATERI ALS~ R I VERBED DATA

K I LOMETRE BAN< EST1MATED3 BmEH0LES4/ POST I NG EPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPH I C (km) NlMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (kml (m3) OBSERVATIONSMATER I AL

766 P246 L SI Ity Sand 0 N/D 766.5 P248 R Sand d Sllt 0 N/D 767 Mld-Channel Grave I 768 P247 L Sllty Sand 0 N/D 7 69 Rlght Bank Grave I 770 Left Bank Gravel 77 1 P251 R Flne Sand 8 5,000,000 773 P250 R Flne Sand 4 N/D 778 P249 R Flne Sand 2 700 ,000 7 79 Rlght Bank Grave I 786 Right Bank Gravel 788 P25 2 R Flne Sand 11 1,000,000 790 Rlght Bank Grave I 791 P255 R Flne Sand 4.5 7,000,000 792 P253 R Flne Sand 10 2,000,000 792 P25 4 R Flne Sand 7 1 ,000,000 795 P256 R Flne Sand 5 1,500,000 802 P257 R Flne Sand 4 250,000 808 Left Bank Sand 81 5-826 Left Bank- I s le Sand 816 FN8 R Gravel 0 N/D 816 FNl6 R Flne Sand 5 1 ,000,000 820 FNll R Flne Sand 0-GreatBear R. N/D 820 FN12 R Gravel & Sand &GreatBear R. N/D 822 FN13 R SI Ity Sand GreatBear R. 1,000,000 823 FNlO R Silty Sand &GreatBear R. 400,000 NO. 1 SI Ity Sand d Gravelover Shale 824 NO. 15 Sand d Gravel over TI1 I

1) Uplanddeposlts greater than 15 km fromthe river have not been consldered. 2) Perncan 1972. 3) N/D - @antlty not deterrnlned. 4) PublIc WorksCanada, 1976. I I t 1 I I t I I t I I i t r 1 I 1 I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page18 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RI ver Zone X I I 824-828 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULARMATERI ALS~ RDATA IVERBED

BAN( EST1 MATED3 BOREHOLES4/ MATED3 EST1 K I LOMETRE BAN( POST I NG EPOS I T RIGHTDISTANCE LEFT FROM RIVER VOLUM DROGRAPH HY IC (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS IAL

825 FN14 R Flne Sand 1 300,000 825 FN23 R Sand 6 Gravel 0 5,000 a27 FN5 R SI Ity Sand 2-GreatBear R. 10,000 828 FN6 R SI Ity Sand 0.5 N/D

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand N/D L Sand 6 Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand 21 .16x 1 06/m3+N/D R Sand 6 Gravel 35.5~1 o~/,~+N/D

1 ) Uplanddeposlts greater than 15 km fromthe river have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan 1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determlned. 4)PublIc Works Canada, 1976. I I I i 9 I I 1 I I t I I I f 1 I I 1

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 19 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (RI ver Zone X I I I 827-879 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIAL$ DATAR I VERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN< ESTIMATED3 BOREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOSDISTANCE I T LEFT RIGHT FROM RIVER VOLUME HY DROGRAPH I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m31 OBSERVAT I ONS MATER I AL

827-835 Mid-Channel-Isle, Sand Great Bear R lver 828 829 FN22 R Sand & Gravel 7 100,000 8 30 FN7 R Gravel & Sand 0 25,000 832 FN3 1 R Sand & Gravel 2.5 75,000 837 FN26 R Sand & Gravel 3.5 2,000,000 837 FN29 R Gravel 6 Sand 7 300,000 8 39 Left Bank Sand 840 FN2 1 R Gravel 3 N/ D 840 FN27 R Si Ity Sand 0 700 ,000 842 843 FNl9 R Grave I 4.5 N/D 843 FN20 R Silt d Sand 0 N/D Left Bank inter- Grave I section w/ little Bear RI ver 843.5 P259 R SI Ity Sand 0.5 N/D 844 P260 R Fine Sand 3 25 0,000 846-850 LeftBank-Isle Sand 6 Gravel 854-863 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 857 P262 R Sand 10 N/D 860 865 Mld-Channel Sand 867 P263 R Sand d Gravel 10 N/D 867 P266 R Silty Gravel 4 N/D 870-880 Left Bank Sand 870 P267 R Si ity Sand 6 N/ D 873 P268 R Sand 8 Gravel 4.5 N/D 876 P269 R Sand d Gravel 0.5 N/D 876.5 P270 R Sandy Gravel 4 200 ,000 879 P274 R SIIty Sand 4.5 N/D

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km from theriver have not been considered. 2) Pemcan1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determlned. 4) Public WorksCanada, 1976. I t t I 1 1 I 1 I I t f I t I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 20 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AM) CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rlver Zone XI I I 880-910 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ DATARIVERBED

LOME TRE BAN< EST BAN< K I LOMETRE I MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOSDISTANCE IT LEFT RIGHT FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

880 P273 R Sandy Gravel 4 N/ D 880 P283 R Sand b Gravel 3.5 N/D 881 P275 R Sand b Gravel 4.5 2,000,000 882-890 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 883 P276 R Sand b Gravel 2 -5 200,000 884 P277 R Sand 4 N/D 884 P278 R Silty Sand 6 Gravel 5.5 2,000,000 886 P279 R Sand 6 Gravel 2 1,000,000 886.5 P280 R Sand d Gravel 4 1,500,000 887.5 P28 1 R Sand b Gravel 6 2,000,000 887.5 P282 R SI Ity Sand b Gravel 2 N/D 889.5 NW14 R SI Ity Sand 2.5 1,500,000 890.5 NW12 R Si Ity2 Sand 200,000 892 NW9 R Sandy Gravel 6 700,000 893 NW18 R Sand 3 1 00,000 894 NWB R Gravel 6 1,000,000 896 e5 899.5 NW10 R Gravel 6 1,000,000 900-91 0 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 900 NW17 L Si Ity5 Sand 3,000,000 900 NWI (7.52) R Sand b Gravel 0 200,000 903 5 NW14 R SI 1 ty Sand 2.5 1,500,000 904 No. 3 Slltyover Clay Shale 905 No. 4 Sllty Clay 906 907 NW6 L 5 Silty Sand 1,500,000 907 NW2(7.50) R Sand b Gravel 1.5 75,000-250,000 908 NW3 R Sandy Gravel 3 1 25,000- 5 00,000 910-916 Left Bank Sand 91 0 NW5 L 4 Sllty Sand 1,500,000

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km fran therlver have not been consldered. 2) Pemcan1972. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determlned. 4)PublIc WorksCanada, 1976. I f 1 I t I 1 I I I I I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page21 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rlver Zone XI II 910-963 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS* RIVERBEDDATA

K I LOMETRE BAN< EST1 BaREHOLES4/ MATED' POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER 1 AL (km) (m3) OBSERVATIONS MATER I AL

910 NW15 R Sandy Gravel 5 1,000,000 No. 21 SIIty Clay 91 2-92 1 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 912 NW L Si Ity Sand 3 500,000 91 6 NWll L Si Ity Sand 1 750,000 920-924 Righ Bank Inter- Sand sect Ion w/B I I I y Cr. 920 NW19(7.46) R Sand h Gravel 5 700,000 925 P285 R SI Ity Sand 6 N/ D 926-933 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 934 P287 R Flne Sand 3 3,500,000 937-940 Left Bank Sand 938.5 P289 R Gravel 6 Sand 4 1,500,000 939 P291(7.37) R Sand h Gravel 1 N/D 940 P288(7.35) R Gravel h Sand 4 10,000,000 94 1 943.5 P292 R Flne Sand 0.5 10,000,000 944 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 947.5-967 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 953.5 P296(7.25) R Grave I 4 2.5-15~10~ 954 P299 R Flne Sand 0.5 2,000,000 958.5 P299A R Fine Sand 1.5 N/D 960 1.22 R Sand 6 Gravel 50-150,000 963 P300 R Flne Sand 1 N/D 963 7.19 R Sand, Sllt 5.5 15x106

Zone Borrow Summary 7.25x106/rn3 L Flne Sand L Sand h Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Fine Sand 33.25x106/m3+N/D R Sand h Gravel 43.9x1O6/m3+N/D

1) Up1 and depos Its greater than 15 km fromthe rlver have not been cons1dered. 2) Pemcan1972. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determlned. 4) PublIc WorksCanada, 1976. 1 i I I i I 1 I I t i t 1 I 1 I I I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 22 MACKENZ IE VALLEY UPLAND' ANDCHANNEL OEPOS I TS (R Iver Zone X I V 963-1 01 7.5 km)

RESERVES cf KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ DATARIVERBED

K ILOMETRE BAN< BOREHOLES4/ EST I MATED' POST1 NG DEPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVERHYDROGRAPHIC VOLUME (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

97 7 P302 977 R Sand d Gravel 11 N/D 97 8 P303 978 R Sand d Gravel 11 N/D 979-980 Mid-channel Sand 981 -982 Left Bank Sand 990 7.17 R Sand b Gravel 1-2 5-25~10~ 1001-1010 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1010-1013 Left Bank- Is le Sand intersect Ion w/ CarcaJ w R Iver 1015 Left Bank Inter- Sand d Gravel sectlon w/ Mt. R. 1017 1017.5

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand N/D L Sand d Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand 15x 1 06+N/D R Sand d Gravel 5-25x1 O6

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km from therlver havenot been consldered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quant Itynot determined. 4) Public Works Canada, 1976. I f f 1 f I 1 1 t I I 1 I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page23 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (River Zone XV 1017.5-1086.5km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ R I VERBEO DATA

BAN< ESTK I LOMETRE BAN< I MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ POST 1 NG DISTANCEDEPOS I TLEFT RIGHT FROM RIVER HYDROGRAF'HVOLUME I C (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

1018-1020 Left Bank Sand 1020-1025 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 1030 Left Bank Sand 1031 No. 19 Sand 6 Gravel 1031 No. 20 Sand 6 Gravel 1033 Mid-Channel-Isle Gravel 1034 1034.5-1043 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 1040-1 051 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1050- 1059 Bank-IsleRlght Sand 1 058- 1070 Mid-channel Hume Sand River intersect Ion 1 068- 1084 Bank-IsleLeft Sand Ramparts R. inter- sect Ion 1082-1086.5 6.84 L Sand b Gravel 1 300,000-1 -5~10~

Zone Borrow Summary L Fine Sand N/D L Sand b Gravel 3- 1 5~ 1 06/m3

Zone Borrow Summary R Fine Sand N/D R Sand b Gravel N/D

1 ) Upland deposltsgreater than 15km from the r lver have not been consi dered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quant lty notdetermlned. 4) Public WorksCanada, 1976. I 1 I 1 i 1 I I I I

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 24 MACKENZIE VALLEYUPLAND' AM) CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rlver Zone XVI 1086.5-1097 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIAL$ RIVERBED DATA

LO METR E BAN< EST BAN< K I LOMETRE IMATED3 BCREHOLES4/ PO STING DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE LEFT RIGHT DEPOSIT POSTING FROM RIVERHYDROGRAPHIC VOLUME (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

1086.5-1093 6.84 L Sand d Gravel 1-2 300,000- 1 -5~1O6 1091 P318 R SI Ity Sand 23 N/D 1097 P315 R Sandy Gravel 27 600,000

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand N/D L Sand d Gravel .3-1 .5x106/m3

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand N/D R Sand d Gravel &x1 06/m3

1) Uplanddeposlts greater than 15 km from therlver have not been considered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determlned. 4) PublIc WorksCanada, 1976. i t 1 1 t 1 t i t t I f I I I I

0301-34288 Page 25

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS* R I VERBED DATA

K I LOMETRE BAN< EST1 MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOSIT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPHIC (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER 1 AL (km) (m3) OBSERVATIONSMATER I AL

1070-1150 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 6 Gravel Intersect ion w/ Harelndlan Rlver 1098 6.83 R Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 100,000-1x106 1100 6.82 R Sand 6 Gravel 0.5 750,000-10x106 1101 1102 FGH2(6.80) R Sandy Gravel 0.5 30,000,000 1102 FGH8 R Sand 6 Gravel 1 1,000,000 1103 FGH7 R Sand 11 100,000 11 03.5 FGH3 R Sandy Gravel 0.5 7,000,000 1104 P316 R SI Ity Sand 23 N/D 1104 P317 R SI Ity Sand 25 N/D 1104 FGH 1 R Sandy Gravel 5 4,000,000 1104.5 FGH4 (6 79) R Sandy Gravel 1 400,000 1105 FGH9 R Sand 12 6,500,000 1109-1 114 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1111 FGH6 R SI Ity Sand 9 100,000 11 12-1 126 Left Bank-Isle Sand 1113 FGH5 R Sand 2 30,000 1115 Rlght Bank Sand 1126-1133 RlghBank-Isle Sand 1132 6.55 R Sand 1 .8X10X106 1134 6.53 R Sand d Gravel 3 1-3x1 O6 1136-1138 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1140-1 145 Left Bank Sand 1149 6.43 R Gravel 1 300,000-600,000 1150-1 153 6.41 R Gravel 6 Sand 0.5 90,000-10x106 1151-1160 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 6 Gravel 1154 6.42 R Gravel 6 Sand 2 .4-6.5x106 1160-1163 Left Bank-Isle Sand TledaRlver

1 ) Up land deposlts greater than 15 km from the r lver havenot beencons 1 dered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4) PublIc Works Canada, 1976. I f i i I f I f I t I t I

0301 -34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 26 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNELDEPOSITS (Rlver Zone XVll 1163-1255 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS~ R I VERBED DATA

BAN < EST K I LOMETRE BAN< I MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUME HYDROGRAPH IC (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) OBSERVATIONSMATER I AL

1162 1164.5 6-37 R Gravel 1.5 .1-1x106 1168-1177 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1178-1 183 Left Bank Sand 1192-1 198 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1 200- 1 205 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand Ontaratue R1ver Intersect Ion 1207-1215 Mid-Channel-Isle Sand 1210 6.1 1 R Grave I 5 1215-1218 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1217 6.9 R Sandy Gravel 6 1221 Mid-channel Sand 1222-1 225 Bank-IsleRlght Sand 1225-1 230 Bank-IsleLeft Sand 1230 5.4 R Sand 0-3 72x1 O6 1234 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1236-1 241 Mld-Channel Sand 1246-1 260 Left Bank- Is le Sand 1252 Mld-Channel 1255 SandRlght Bank

Zone Borrow Summary L Flne Sand N/D L Sand d Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand 8.28 83.5~1 06tN/D R Sand d Gravel 3.09 94.5~10~

1) Up land depos Its greaterthan 15 km fromthe rl ver have not been cons1dered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quant Itynot determlned. 4) Pub1 Ic WorksCanada, 1976. i 1 t t 1 I f I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 27 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' AND CHANNEL DEPOSITS (RiverZone XVI I I 1255-1390 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERI ALS~ RDATA 1 VERBED

LOMETR E BAN< K I LOMETRE BCl?EHOLES4/ ESTIMATED3 POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHTDISTANCE LEFT FROM RIVER VOLUM DROGRAPH HY I C (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) AT OBSERV I ON S MATER I AL

1261-1274 Mid-channel-isle Sand 1265 5.23 R Sand 6 Gravel 2 50,000-40x106 1272 5.21 L Sand 6 Gravel 5 1-5~10~ 1274-1 279 Left Bank Sand 1281 5 -20 L Sand, Si ity Gravel 1.5 3-3~1 O6 1282 5.18 LGravel Silty 1 45,000-3.5~10~ 1283 Mid-channel Sand 1283.5-1294 Mld-Channel-Isle Sand 1284 5.19 LGravel Silty 7 10,000-4~10~ 1297 4.104 R Si Ity Sand 6 Gravel 1 25,000-10x106 1300 Mid-channel,Thunder Sand River Intersect ion 1 300- 1 307 Left Bank Sand 1307-1318 4.109 L Slity Sand 6 Gravel 4-5 20,000-7.5~10~ 1307-1318 5.12 R Sand 6 Gravel 1 5-20~1 O6 1314-1320 Right Bank Sand 1318 4.107 L Sand 6 Gravel 1-2 5-2Ox 1 O6 1318 5.13 R Gravelly Sand 1 70,00C-2x 1O6 1318 5.14 R Si I ty Sand 1 150,000-2x 1O6 1326-1 330 Mid-channel Sand 1336 LeftBank-Isle Sand 1351-1358 Left Bank- I s le Sand 1360-1 363 Left Bank Sand 1365 Mid-channel Sand 1366-1 379 Mld-Channel Sand 1381 Mid-channel Sand 1386 Left Bank Sand 1387-1393 Right Bank inter- Sand sect ion w/ Rabblt Hay River 1390

1) Uplanddeposits greater than 15 km fromthe river have not been considered. 2) Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quantitynot determined. 4) Publlc Works Canada, 1976. t t I t I f I I 1 i t I I I I I I I 1

0301-34288 TABLE5.1 Page 28 MACKENZ IE VALLEYUPLAND' AM) CHANNEL DEPOSITS (R1 ver Zone XV I I I 1390-1440 km)

RESERVES OF KNOWN GRANULAR MATERIALS* DATARIVERBED

BAN < EST1 MATED3 BCREHOLES4/ MATED3 EST1 K I LOMETRE BAN< POST I NG DEPOS IT RIGHT LEFT DISTANCE FROM RIVER VOLUE HYDROGRAPH IC (km) NLMBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

1405 Mld-Channel Sand 1410 Left Bank Sand 1417 SandRlght Bank 1423 Mid-channel Sand 1425-1 434 Bank-IsleLeft Sand 1430 Rlght Bank Sand

Zone Borrow Surnrnar y L Flne Sand N/D L Sand d Gravel 6.4-43x106/rn3

Zone Borrow Summary R Flne Sand 15-2~1 O6 R Sand b Gravel 5.14-72~10~

1 ) Up1 anddepos Its greater than 15 km from the r I ver have not been cons I dared. 2)Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quantlty not deterrnIned. 4) PublIc Works Canada, 1976. i 1 I 1 1 I I 1 li I I f I

0301-34288 TABLE 5.1 Page 29 MACKENZIEVALLEY UPLAND' ANDCHANNEL DEPOSITS (River Zone XIX 1440-1475 km)

RESERVES OFGRANULAR KNOWN MATERIALS2 DATAR I VERBED

K I LOMETRE BAN< ESTIMATED3 BOREHOLES4/ POST I NG DEPOS I T RIGHTDISTANCE LEFT FROM RIVER VOLUME HY DROGR Ani I C (km) NWBER (R) (L) MATER I AL (km) (m3) MATEROBSERVATIONS I AL

1440 3.16 R Sand 6 Gravel 0-1 175-2x1 O6 RightSand Bank 1444 Mid-channel Sand 1444-1 449 Left Bank Sand 1453 1473 Left Bank Sand

Zone Borrow Summary L Fine Sand N/D L Sand 6 Gravel N/D

Zone Borrow Summary R Fine Sand N/D R Sand d Gravel 175-2~1 O6

1) Uplanddeposlts greater than 15 km fran theriver havenot been consldered. 2)Hardy 1986. 3) N/D - Quantltynot determined. 4) Public Works Canada, 1976. 0301-34288

TABLE 5.2

ANTICIPATED GRANULAR BORROW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAJOR MACKENZIEVALLEY COMMUNITIES

VOLUME (m3 X 100)

COMMUNITYLOCAT I ON 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL (km) """

FortProv i den ce 79 47 36 - - 100 183

JeanMar le Rlver 270 12 17 100 - - 129

Fort S I mp son 340 use IO - 20,000 m3/year

Wrlgley 574 13 90 10 100 16 229

Fo rt Norman Fort 827 35 - 57 15 - 107

Norman We1 Is 9 05 NotAvailable

FortGood Hope 1101 165 15 23 32 - 235

ArcticRed Rlver 1454 140 90 - 15 - 245 1 I 1 I I

0301-34288

TABLE5.3 COST COMPAR I SON FOR CONVENT I ONAL AND RIVERBED BORROW PRODUCT1 ON

CONVENTIONAL UPLAND BORROW PRODUCTION' R I VERBED DREDG I NG COSTS2 CO ST COMPONENT COST (SOUTH OF NORMAN WELLS) 8600 m3/day 1400 m3/day

a) Equ a) 1 pment Mob 1 I I zat i on ( $/m3) - 5 -00 6 -00

P It Development ($/m31 Development b) PIt 1 .oo - - c) Excavat c) 1 on ( $/m3) 4 -00 0 -60 2.00 d)Overland Hauling3 (Access Road d Trucking) ( S/m3/km)

R ive r Hauling (Barge) (S/m3/km) (Barge) Hauling e) River - 0.75 0.15 f)ing Rehandl Docksite d Stockpl I lng4 ($/m3) - 3.50 3.505

Notes: (1) Conventionalproduction rates would be 1000 to 1500 m3/day. (2)Capital costs for dredgingand barglng equlpment not included. (3) Approximately S0.50/m3/km foraccess road development and $1.20/m3/km for hauling. (4) Assumes thatstockpile is we1 I drainedand not allowed to freeze. (5)For cases where river borrow must be moved Inland, both are required. i f f t t I I I

0301-34288

TABLE 6.1 SUMMARYOF DlSCHARGE RECORDS FOR THE MACKENZIE RIVER TO 1984 (INTERPRETEDFROM WATER SURVEY OF CANADA RECORDS)

MEAN MEAN ANNUAL ANNUAL MINIMUM LOWEST DA I LY DAILY MEAN FLOW/ FLOW/ MINIMUM MEAN YEARS PEAK YEARS DAILY FLOW OF OF OF FLOW OF SITE YEARSOF YEARS RECORD RECORD RECORD RECORD NUMBER RECORDS* (M3/S) (M3/S) (M3/S) (M3/S) (M3/S)

MackenzleRlverNear 1 OFBOOl 9s 4280 7580 8840 1680 1040 Fort Provldence(KP 80) 1 oc over 21 yrs 13 yrs 10 yrs

MackenzleAtRlver 106C001 26s 6550 16400 23500 201 0 1500 Fort Slmspon(KP 340) 21c over 2 1 yrs 40 yrs 22 yrs

MackenzleRlverAt 1 OKAOOl 20s 8 400 22270 30300 2500 1950 Norman We 1 I s (KP 905) 17c over 17 yrs 29 yrs 17 yrs

MackenzleRlverAbove 1 OLA003 1s 89 40 28600 32000 2560 1680 ArctlcRed Rlver (KP 1454) 12c over 12 yrs 12 yrs 12 yrs

S - SeasonalRecords Only C - ContlnuousRecords 0301-34288

TABLE 6.2 FISHSPECIES LOCATED WITHIN THE MACKENZIEVALLEY STUDYAREA (Adaptedfrom Dome etal 1982)

SPAWN I NG COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PERIOD TYPE** MaJ or Spec les Dol I y Varden Salvellnusmalma F A LakeTrout Salvelinusnamaycush F F LakeCisco Coregonus arted 11 F F Arct 1 c C 1 sco C. autumnal is F A LeastCisco C. sard I ne I I a F A HumpbackWhiteflsh C. clupeaformls F A BroadWhiteflsh C. nasus F A Round Wh i tef i sh Prosoplumcylindraceum F A MountainWhitefish P. wl I I iamsoni F F lnconnu Stenodusleuclchthys nelma F A ArcticGrayling Thymallusarcticus S F Go I deye Hlodonalosoides S F NorthernPike Esox I uc I us S F Ye I I owWa t 1 eye Stizostedlonvitreum vitreum S F LongnoseSuckers Catostomuscatostomus S F Burbot iotaIota S F MI nor Spec ies WhiteSuckers Catostomuscatostomus S F Chum Sa t mon Oncorhynchusketa F A ArcticChar Sa I ve I I nus a1 p I nus F A Arct 1 c Lamprey Lampetra J aponl ca S A Sme I t Hypomesusolidus S F No.RedbellyDace Chrosomus eos S F FinescaleDace Chrosomusneoeus S F LongnoseDace Rhlnlchthyscataractae S F PearlDace Semotilusrnargarlta S F LakeChub couesiusplubeus S F FlatheadChub Platygobio gracl I is S F Emera I d Sh i ner Notropisatherinoides S F SpottailShiner Notrlpishudsonius S F Fathead Minnow Pimephalespromelas S F BrookStickleback Culealnconstans S F NlnesplneStickleback Pungltiuspungltlus S F TroutPerch Percopslsomlscomaycus S F YellowPerch Percaflavescens S F SlimySculpln Cottuscognatus S F SpoonheadSculpln Cottus r I cei S F

~~ * SpawnlngPerlod:F-Fall ** A-AnadromousType: ng F-FreshwaterS-Spr I ng W-Wl nter 0301 -34288

TABLE 6.3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL HARVEST OF THE MACKENZIEVALLEY DOMESTIC FISHERIES (From:McCart and Den Beste 1979)

NO. OF COMMUNPOUNDS 1 TY MAIN TYPES OF FISH HARVESTED

MackenzieDelta and Tuktoyaktuk 111,000 Arctlcchar, whiteflsh, lnconnu,herrlng

FortMcPherson and Arctlc Red R. 450,000Whiteflsh, CISCO, Arctic char,northern pfke, suckers

Fort Good Hope, Col vl I leLake 100,000 Whitefish,clsco, lnconnu, trout

Fort Norman,Norman We1 Is 29,000 Laketrout, Arctlc grayling, whlteflsh, CISCO,inconnu

Wrlgley 2,500Whltefish, northern pike, suckers

Fort S i mpson 1,000 Whltefish,northern pike, suckers

Jean-MarleRlver 800Whiteflsh, northern pike, suckers

TroutLake 1,000 Whiteflsh,northern plke, suckers 0301 -34298

TABLE 6.4 REACH ZONES WITH SIGNIFICANTFISHERIES ACTIVITIES*

REACH BOUNDAR I E S ZONE (km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

VI I 300- 410 E. of Rabbltskin R. to E. of Burnt Is.

IX 580520- N. of Wlllowlake R. Wrigleyto R.

X 580- 605 Wrlgley R.Blackwater to R.

XI I 714-Redstone828 R. Greatto Bear R.

XI I1 828- 956 GreatBear R. Patrlclato Is. xv 1017-1087SansSault Ragids d Mountaln R. to Rampartsthe

XVI I 1098-1261 N. end of Ramparts to N. of LittleChicago R.

XIX 1438-1475LowerRamparts to PointSeparatlon

*Theseare noted as Zones wlth Hlgh Fisheries Actlvitles on Flgure5.1. 0301 -34288

TABLE 7.1 RAT I NG SYSTEM FORTHE GRANULAR MATERIALSPOTENTIAL OF THE RIVER ZONES

RAT I NG PO I NTS

A. RIVER CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS

Typeof Channel Braided Braldedtransltlonal to straight Braldedtransitional to meanderlng Stralght Meander 1 n g Expanded

8. RIVERGRADIENT

Grad 1 ent -001 - .09 m/km .I - .19 m/km .2 - .29 m/km .3 - .39 m/km

C. TYPE OR NUMBER OF TRIBUTAR ES

Descrlption Threeor more large gravel bedtrlbutarles and five or more sma I I gravelbed trl b tarles

Threelarge gravel bed trlbutarles and no or a fewsmall gravelbed trlbutarles,

One to two largegravel bed trlbutarles and many small gravelbed streams

One to two largegravel bed trlbutarles and a few or no gravelbed trlbutarles

NO largegravel bed trlbutarles but several small gravel bedstreams

0 No gravelbed tributarles

D. CUMMULATIVE RATINGS(TOTAL OF POINTS FROM A, B AND C)

Rat 1 ng 1-4 Lou 5 Low to Moderate 6-7 Moderate 8 Moderate to High 9 - 13 HI gh i I I I I J 1 I I

0301-34288 TABLE 7 e2 EVALUATION OF RIVERREGIME CHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

AVERAGE RIVER RIVER ZONE GRADR I VER I EN1 R I VER REG I ME (km) MORPHOLOGY TRIBUTARY (m/km) BED CHARACTERISTICS RAT I NG

I Stra I ght 0.04 None Low (0-26) (2) (1) (0) (3)

II Stra 1 ght 0.03 None Low (26-60) (2) (1) (0) (3)

Ill 0.25 2 non-gravel Moderate (60-1 07) (3) (0) (7)

IV Expanded very low None Low (107-130) (10) (1) (0) (1)

V StraI ght 0.02 3 gravelcreeks Low ( 130-229) (2) (1) (1) (4)

VI Stra 1 ght 0.056 1 rlvergravel Low ( 229-300) (2) (1) (1) (4)

VI I Strafght 0.15 4 non-gravel Low ( 300-4 10) (2) (2) (0) (4)

VI I I BraIded 0.15 3 largegravel HI gh (41 0-520 (4) (2) (4) (IO)

IX Stralgtht-Bralded 0.17 2 gravelrlvers, 1 gravelcreek Moderate-Hlgh (520-580) (3) (2) (3) (8)

X Stra 1 ght 0.06 3 gravelrlvers, 5 gravelcreeks Moderate-Hlgh (580-665) (2) (1) (5) (8)

XI Stra 1 ght-Br a I dad 0.3 3 gravelrIvers, 5 gravelcreeks HI gh (665-714) (3) (4) (5) (12)

XI I Brafded-Meanderlng0.13 1 gravelrlver Moderate (714-828) (2) (2) (2) (6) i t I t f t I I i I

0301 -34288 TABLE 7.2 EVALUATION OF RIVER REGIMECHARACTERISTICS FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

AVERAGE R I VER RIVER ZONE RIVER GRAD I ENT RIVER REGIME (km) MORPHOLOGY TRIBUTARY (m/km) BED CHARACTERISTICS RAT I NG

XI I I Bralded 0.1 1 3 gravelrivers, 21 gravelcreeks Hfgh (828-966) (4) (2) (5) (11)

XIV Straight-Bralded 0.08 2 gravelrivers, 2 gravel creeks Moderate (966-1 01 7) (3) (1) (31 (7)

xv Braided 0.14 No graveltrlbutarles Moderate ( 101 7-1 087) (4) (2) (0) (6)

XVI Stralght 0.17 None Low (1087-1098) (2) (0) (4)

XVI I Bra 1 ded 0.03 3 gravelcreeks Moderate (1098-1261) (4) (1) (1) (5)

XVI I I Brafded-Stralght 0.011 1 gravelriver, 3+ gravelcreeks Low-Moderate (1261-1438) (1) (3) (1) (5)

XIX Stra I ght 0.03 No graveltrlbuarles Low (1438-1475) (2) (1) (0) (3) t I 1 t I t i I

0301-34288 TABLE 7 -3 RIVERBED BORROW POTENTIAL FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

RIVER RIVER ZONE REG 1 ME UPLAND BORROWDEPOS I TS2 FISHERIES (km) RAT I NG~ SAND (m3) SAND 6 GRAVEL (m3) ACTIVITIES3 POTENTIAL FOR RIVER BORROW SOURCES

I Low None D FM Low ( 0-26) (Moderate)

I1 Low None D FM Low (26-60) (Moderate)

Ill None Moderate DSRM Boreholedata (dwg. 4.1) suggests (60-107) (Moderate) Moderate-Hlgh potentlalbetween km 75 and100

IV Low None DM Low (107-130) (Low)

V Low Some nearTrout b Redknl fe Rlver M D Low-Moderatebetwoen km 170and229 ( 130-300) (Moderate)

VI Low None -DM ModerateJean-Marienear (kmCreek (229-300) 270)otherwlse low

VI I Low lmltedUnl 2,000 # 000 ”M DL Moderatebetween km 310-330 (300-410) otherwise low

VI I I HIgh Unllmlted < 500 000 DMSR Hlghnear McGern Island (km (410-520) (Moderate) 490-520)Camsel I Bend(km 460)

IX >67,000,000Moderate-HlghUnllmlted -DM Hlghnear Wrigley Rlver (km 580) (520-580) andRlver Between Two Mountalns(km 539)

X Moderate-HIghUnllmlted>56,000,000 605)-DM (km Rlver Ochre near Hlgh (580-665) (High) Blackwaterand Rlver (km 664)

XI HI>65,000,000 gh Imlted Unl MSR Hlgh (665-714) (Low 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 i I I I f I J I

0301-34288 TABLE7.3 RIVERBED BORROW POTENTIAL FOR EACH RIVER ZONE

RIVER RIVER ZONE REG I ME UPLAND BORROW DEPOS I TS2 FISHERIES (km) RAT I NG~ SAND (m3) SAND b GRAVEL (m3) ACTIVITIES3 POTENTIAL FOR RIVER BORROW SOURCES

XI I Moderate imltedUnl > 36,000,000 DMSR Moderatebetween km 725and 780 ( 7 14-828) (Hlgh)HighnearFortNorman 825)(km

XI I I Hi gh >40,000,000 -Mors R Is(proof Hlgh at NormanWells (828-956) (km(High) 905)

XIV Moderate 15,000,000 5-25~1 O6 SRM HI gh Sansnear Sau It Rap ids (966-1017) (Moderate)Moderate between km 966and1000 xv Moderate ~2,000,000 -MRS betweenHigh km 1017-1030,low (1017-1087) beyond (High) xv I Low Limited M Low (1087-1098) (Low 1

XVI I Low Some andlarge many small -DSR M ModeratenearTleda River (km 1163) (1098-1261 depos its (High ) Loon R 1 ver(km 1136) and Hare lndlanRiver (km 1105). Low between km 1 140

XVI I I Low-Moderate lmited12-115~10~Uni -MDS R ModerateThundernear River (1261-1438) (Moderate)(km1299) otherwise low

XIX Low 2,000,000 -M SO Lowmoderate to below Arct ICRed (1438-1475 (Hlgh)1454)Rlver(kmotherwise low

Note: (1) FromTable 7.2 (2) FromTable 5.1 (3) From Appendix B, Symbolsare: D - Domestic Fisherles,F-Sprot Fisheries S - Spawning Arears, R - RearlngAreas, M - MlgratoryRoutes Wherehigher level of sensitivityhas been noted in Appendlx B It Is indicatedby underllned symbol (eg: 0301-34288

TABLE 7.4 AREAS WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF RIVERBED BORROW APPEARS FEASIBLE’

DEMAND REACHESSUPPLY POTENTIAL REACHES (km) RatingZ

0- 200 50- 100 C - Moderate

200- 400 275-300 C - Moderate 200- 400 300-325 B - Moderate to Hlgh 400- 425 C - Moderate 450-475 B - Moderate to Hlgh 475- 500 A - Hlgh

400-475450- 525 B - Moderate to Hlgh 475- 500 A - High

70 0- 725 700- 725700- 725 700- A - Hlgh

75 0- 875 750- 775750- 875 750- C - Moderate 800-025 A - High 825-850 A - Hlgh 850-875 C - Moderate 875- 900 A - High

1000-1 100 1000- 1025 A - High 1025-1050 A - Hlgh

11 75-1 200 1150-120017575-1 11 C - Moderate

12 25-1 250 1275-1300 2501225-1 C - Moderate

13 25-1 475 1275-1300 4751325-1 C - Moderate

Notes :

1) Fromriverbed subzones of Hlgh,Moderate to Hlgh, or ModeratePotentlal.

2) FromFlgure 4.1 0301-34288

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1 NORMAN WELLS EXPANSIONPROJECT RIVER WORKS

FIGURE 3.2 GRADATION DISTRIBUTION OF THE DREDGED ISLAND FILL AT NORMAN WELLS

FIGURE 3.3 SECTIONA-A

FIGURE 3.4 SECTIONB-B

FIGURE 4.1 NORTH-SOUTH LONGITUDINALCROSS-SECTION MACKENZI E VALLEY

FIGURE 5.1 THE RELATIVE COST OF CONVENTIONAL AND RIVERBED BORROW PRODUCTION AIAINL AND

Survey - July and August, 1984

GOOSE ISLAND

0 200 400 600 800 1000

metres

E AR ISLAND 8 EAR \\ 0301-34288.5I

FIGURE 3.1 NORMAN WELLS EXPANSION PROJECT' RIVER WORKS SAND CLAY *SILT GAAVEL c FINE I MEDIUM ICCIARS~ FINE 1 COARSE SIEVE SIZES

GRAIN SIZE - MlLLlMETRES

LEGEND

RANGE FOR 50% OF TESTRESULTS

RANGE FOR 75% OF TESTRESULTS ...... UPPER LIMIT FOR 90% OF TEST RESULTS "- UPPER LIMIT FOR 95% OF TEST RESULTS "" UPPER LIMIT FOR ALL TEST RESULTS

NOTE : BASED ON 27 GRAIN SIZE TESTS TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION

FIGURE 3.2 GRADATIONDISTRIBUTION OFTHE DREDGED ISLAND FILL AT NORMAN WELLS

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. t

A A'

m m N N @- 42 u r u r X a m a rn m .. 40 .. ICE

38

36

34

32

30

CLAY 28 [J \

26

SCALE - horizontal 1:lOOOO Et4 - Borehole 24 vertical 1 :200 DC - Dynamic Cone Ponetntlon Tea

22 NOTES : - Stratigraphy between boreholes has bcen assumed 20 - Ice surface elevations from Water Survey of Canada stage mcasurenJenisat rlte rime of drilliny - Bedrock surface presumed from drilliny action - Elevations referenced to topographic datum

0301-34288.5 J

FIGURE 3.3 SECTION A - A B 8'

la 42 - mr

40 -

3a -

36 -

34 - " z - 32 - z 0 2 30 - 2 -I 28 -

26 -

24 -

22 - SCALE - horironu 20 vonial

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.

FIGURE 3.4 SECTION B - B

I

L I

40 1

36 -

32 -

28 -

24 -

- 20 COST ($ I in3) GOST($ I m3) 20 -

- 15

””- ””-” 10

4-

0 I 1 I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I 2 4 0 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

HAUL DISTANCE k 0301 -34288.5

FIGURE 5.1 THERELATIVE COST OFCONVENTIONAL AND RIVERBED BORROW PRODUCTION 0301-34288

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DRAWING 4.1 (a-g) GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE MACKENZIE RIVER VALLEY

0301-34288

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DRAWING 4.1 (a-g) GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE MACKENZIE RIVER VALLEY (1301-34288

APPENDIX A WMJLOGY AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICSOF MAINSTEM REACHES I. 0301-34288 Page A1 .

A.l NTS MAP 85-F (KM 0 TO KM 100)1

The MackenzieRiver from km 0 onGreat Slave Lake to km 325 nearFort Simpson isregulated by GreatSlave Lake. This portion of theMackenzie River a1 so carries re1 atively 1i ttl e sediment. Mean annualdischarge at FortProvidence is 4280 m3/sec; the summer monthly mean (May to October) is 6,630 m3/secand wintermonthly mean (November to April is 2,370 m3/sec based on datafrom 1943 to 1979 (MackenzieRiver Basin Committee 1981 1.

Just downstream ofthe Mackenzie Highway ferry crossing (10 km upstreamof FortProvidence at km 65)the river significantly narrows from 2.2 km to halfthe width. Here Providence Rapids (km60 to km 72) forms a narrow, windingreach with some shoalareas inthe navigation channelwith currentsof 5.6 to 9.3 kg/m. ProvidenceNarrows (km72 - km 78) formsthe northwest end ofthe rapids where thecurrent reaches its maximum speed, about 9.6 to 17.7 kg/hr.(Canadian Hydrographic Service 1985). Downstream of BeaverLake, the Mackenzie riverbanks are relatively steep and rise 6 to 12 m, particularlyin Providence Narrows where thechannel is narrow and confined between12 m high mud banks(Renewable Resources Consul ti ng ServicesLtd. 1987). Bed materialthrough Providence Narrows is bouldery til 1. Between km 77 and km 106, severallarge is1 ands are located in the channel,the biggest being Meridian Island.

Inthe MackenzieRiver, above the (km 3401, normallow-flow sedimentconcentrations are about 20 mg/l. Based on recordsfrom 1966 to 1978, maximum instantaneousdischarge on theMackenzie River near Fort Providence(Station No. 10FB001) was 8,010m3/sec on 1966 July 10. Between1962 and 1984, maximum dailydischarge was 3,880 m3/sec on 1969 June 1 (WaterSurvey of Canada 1985).

Footnote: 1 Crosscorrelation between NTSMap sheetand River Zone are provided in Table 4.1 . 0301-34288 Page A2

A.2 NTS MAP 85-E (KM 100 TO KM 195)

Flowsfrom the Fort Providencereach downstream to thejunction with the Liardrange from 2,000 to 8,500 m3/sec (Renewable Resources Consul ti ng Services, 1978). From Fort Providence downstream to Fort Simpson, the Mackenzie isrelatively free of sediment. The reach is incised,single channelled and free of islands or significantfloodplain.

A.3 NTS MAP 95-H (KM 195 TO KM 3701

The channel between Rabbi tski n River and Berens Landing (km 300 to km 314) has some shoalbars and fromGreen Island Rapids (km 314 to km 323) is constricted between two narrow dredged rock cuts.Currents through the rapids approximate 9.6 kph but subsequently drop toabout 3.7 kph above theLiard junction on the west side of the Mackenzie upstream of Fort Simpson (CanadianHydrographic Service1985). A section of the Mackenzie at Green Island Rapids is designated a priorityarea for dredging and similarpriority areas occuroff the mouth of therabbitskin River and at Strong Point (Canadian Marine TransportationAdministration 1974).

In theFort Simpson area,the Mackenzie Riverfollows a re1 atively straight course with 1 ittle sign of meandering since its inception followingdeglaciation. Its banks consist of glacial drift, mostly till and finegrained lacustrine sediments. The Mackenzie essentially separatesthe area of thick,fine-grai ned 1 acustrine sedimentsin the south from till, orlacustrine sedimentsover till in the north. There appears to be a minimum amount of depositionassociated with the down-cutting. The surfaces havebeen scoured,exposing til 1, lake sediment orlag gravels. There are, however, remnants of terraces that containthick gravels and sand,usually with overlying si1t at various 1ocati ons a1 ong thi s segment. . 0301-34288 Page A3

Scarpsnear Fort Simpson reach heights of60 m but decrease in height upstreamfrom Fort Simpson (Rutter et a1 . 1973).

I InJuly 1969, Reeder et a1 . (1972)recorded total dissolved sol ids of 177mg/l in the Mackenzie River just upstreamof its confluence with the , Liard River. Discharge at the time was 7,985 m3/sec and suspended matter totalled 5.8 mg/l. At the same time the Liard River atFort Simpsonhad a dischargeof 2,407 ms/sec, and totaldissolved sol ids were recorded at 200 mg/l and suspended matter16.0 mg/l. In 1973 the Mackenzie River just upstreamof the mouth of the Liard River had an annual rate of transport oftotal suspended sedimentestimated at 4,490,000 tonnes/yr. which, on a drainagearea basis, was equivalentto about 4,400 kg of total suspended sediment/kmz/yr.(Campbell et al.1975). The correspondingestimates for 1972 were 3,340,000tonnes/yr. and 3,270 kg/km2/yr.

Based on recordsfrom 1968 to1984, maximum instantaneousdischarge recordedIn the Mackenzie River atFort Simpson (Station No. 1OGCOO1) was 23,000m3/sec on1977 June 6; forrecords from1939 to 1984, maximum daily discharge was 23,500 m3/sec on 1980 November 24,based on records from 1961 to 1984(Water Survey of Canada 1985).

Growth rateof point bars and islandsalong the Mackenzie River are variable with the fastestrate occuring beside active channels and slower beside highwater channels. Also, location, rate of sedimentatio and rate of plantinvasion contribute to this variation. At the islandat Camsell Bend, apparenthorizontal growth rate of the island was 13.5m/yr.

A .4 NTS MAP 95-J (KM 370 TO KM 545)

Between Camsel 1 Bend (km 465) and McGern Is1and (km 5201, the Mackenzie River channel is wide and frequently spl it aroundis1 ands, 1 ikely due to 0301-34288 Page A4

inflowof coarse bed material supplied by theRoot and NorthNahanni rivers. Sone largerscale instability isevident inthe vicinity of McGern Is1and (Neil 1 1973)and the 29 km reach at andbelow McGern Island I is a prioritydredging area with a potentialrepeat factor of 1 in 10 years.

Fox(1981) assessed changes in spatial pattern of river banks, is1ands and barsalong the Mackenzie over a recent 10- to 25-yearperiod. Changes were relatively marked inthe reaches below Fort Simpsonand before Camsell Bend withevidence ofis1 anderosion, shifting ofbars and collapse of river banks, allof which make thesereaches a sourceof large amounts of sediment. The reachbefore Camsell Bend includes an areaof extensiveslope failure. Here riverbanks are composed oflacustrine silts andclays and fine fluvial deposits over shales. Recent erosion is particularly marked inlacustrine deposits (Fox 1981).

BetweenCamsell Bendsand WillowlakeRiver (km 515) thereare a variety of depositssuch as gravel,, fine fluvial material s and til 1 over sandstones, si1 tstones and dol omi tes.Riverbanks are mai nly stab1 e; exceptionsare is01 ated sites on the west bank,and thereis marked sedimentation on is1ands and bars, (Fox 1981). Between Wil lowlakeRiver andRiver Between Two Mountains(km 539) the channel iswell established betweenbanks of til 1 and lacustrineclay overlying shales and si1tstones of Devonianage and recently eroded. Deposition inthis reach is slight. Sedimentfrom Wrigley River and Hodgson Creek is carried downstream.

It is common that 1 arge 1 andslides can be found in the glacial lake basin soilswhich are common inthe reach of the Mackenzie River between Fort Simpsonand Camsel 1 Bend (McRobertsand Morgenstern, 1973). I 0301-34288 Page A5

A.5 NTS MAP 95-0 (KM 545 TO KM 650)

Between thejunction of theRedstone River (km 715)and Wrigley (km 574), theMackenzie flows in a singl e channel offairly regular width. There is littlesign oflateral shifting or bank instabilityexcept atthe right-angle bendbelow the B1 ackwaterRiver (km 663). InJuly 1969, Reeder et a1 . (1972)recorded of 196mg/l inthe MackenzieRiver near Wrigley. Suspended mattertotalled 46.4 mg/l atthe time and discharged was 10,590 rn3/sec.

Downstream ofRiver Between Two Mountains(km 5381, theMackenzie narrows its channel for a distance of 29 km withshallows and drying banks borderingthe channel (Canadian Hydrographic Service, 1985). Sand and gravelbanks and shallowwater border the west bank beforeFish Trap Creek (km 556.8) entersfrom the west, and thesecontinue beyond this creek downstream toopposite the settlement ofWrigley. Currents inthis stretchto 6.4 km beforeWrigley are between 9.3 to 11.1 kph, part of a swiftsection. Downstream fromthis point to Blackwater River mouth the currentis about 6.4 kph.Hodgson Creek joinsthe Mackenzie from the east through a gravelbeach immediately downstream of Wrigl ey.

The OchreRiver mouth (km 605) is restricted bysand flatsseparated by a narrow , shallowchannel atthe entrance. At thispoint immediately downstream ofthe OchreRiver, the Mackenzie is onlyabout 0.48 km wide thelower stages. The deltaoff the mouth of JohnsonRiver (km 635) dries at lowwater stages.

A.6 NTS MAP 95-N (KM 650 TO KM 680)

The MackenzieRiver follows a straightcourse to downstream of the BlackwaterRiver entering from the east. Between Blackwater River and Old 0301-34288 Page A6

FortPoint (km7721, the Mackenzie is windingwith frequent expansions containingislands, drying banks and river crossings (Canadian HydrographicService, 1985). River banks are clay and gravel varying in heightform 20 to 60 m. The currentin this section is turbulent with a rate between 9.3 and 12.8 kph. At km 666.2, theMackenzie makes an abrupt turnwest for 4.8 km beforecontinuing a northwardcourse. Around this endthe navigation channel follows the west bank duringhigher water 1eve1 s and theeast ban during 1 ow waterlevel s. A dryinggravel area separatesthe two channel s. Downstream ofthis end, theDahadi nni River joinsthe Mackenzie from the west. This river isdivided over long stretchesinto several shall ow channelsand at its mouth it flowsover a dryingbar of sandand gravel.

A.7 NTSA.7 MAP 96-C (KM 680 TO KM 845)

The reach of theMackenzie River between the (km 714)and Seagull Is1 and (krn 790) is probably the most unstable onea1 ong the enti re river.In this section, the river has an irregular meander patternwith frequentislands andbars. The banks ofthe river and islandsare slowly beingeroded; the natural concentration ofsediment may be as high as 7,000 mg/l or 8,000 mg/lduring high flow. Both the Redstone and Keele Rivers(km 737 bring 1 argequanti ties of si 1 t, sandand coarse bed materialinto the Mackenzie. The widthof the Mackenzie at its confluence ofthe Redstone is substantiallyreduced by thebuild-up of a large side-channelbar. This is composed of materialfrom the Redstone Riverwhich would be toolarge to be moved bythe Mackenzie. The river slopetrough this reach has increasedconsiderably, probably due tothe build-up ofsediment at the upper end ofthis reach.Because theKeele River is somewhat more stablethan the Redstone, it does notcarry as much sedimentinto the Mackenzie (Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd., 1978 I. 0301-34288 Page A7

The highsediment transport into the Mackenzie by theRedstone has resultedin many barand island formations downstream. Depositionis heavy inthis areaand much silt andsand iseither in transition or is beingdeposited a1 ong the edges ofthe islands. Banks adjacentto the riverare veneered with sandsand gravels.Between the Redstone and Keele Rivers,erosion along the banks of the Mackenzie islight except on the northeast bank ofthe river opposite the (Fox 1979).

No mainstemsediment sampling stations are located in this map area.

A .8 NTS MAP 96-D (KM 845 TO KM 855)

Thereach from Seagull Island (km 790) downstream pastHalfway Islands (km 860) to Ten MileIsland (km 885) ischaracterized by an irregular meander patternand occasional islands andbars. The substrate is general ly sandand gravel . The rivernarrows to a singlechannel in thi s reach. The GreatBear River (km 8271, whichenters this reach just below Fort Noman,brings inonly small quanti ties of gravelto the Mackenzie (RenewableResources Consul ti ng ServicesLtd. 1978). Is1ands within this map areanear present stream level , consist of si1 t, sandand gravel , and aresubject to periodic flooding (Lombard North GroupLtd. 1974).

A.9 NTS MAP 96-E (KM 855 TO KM 975 1

Some sectionsof the river bank inthis map areaexhibit large scale, retrogressivefailures accompaniedby gullying (Code 1973). Changes in planconfiguration from the main river and island banks at Norman Wells havebeen examined by a detailedcomparison of airphotos taken in 1950 and 1972. Some of themain features noted were: the downstreambank ofBear Islandfacing Goose Island has cut back by about 100 m in 22 years, 0301-34288 Page A8

averaging 5 m peryear; a 1.6 km lengthof the left river bank opposite theupstream part of Bear Is1 and may have cut backby up to 30 m; changes inSix Mile, Frenchy andGoose Islandsare more difficultto define becausethe islands have few we1 1-defined banks and are surrounded by low barsand shoals. There is evidenceof mainly lateral shifting inthe principalbars around the is1 and.s At SixMile Island some shorelines haveapparently shifted by up to 250 my orabout 11 m/yr.; the Goose Islandshorel ine that faces Bear Island appears to havereceeded about 180 m, which means thatthe channel between the islands has widened by some 280 m. Changes innwell-defined banks of the higher wooded islands donot exceed 5 m peryear on theaverage; changes inthe shorelines of majorsand bars are more rapid and may be up to 12 m peryear on the average.The overallrates of changeare very small in re1ation to the sizeor the river (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1979)

The reachupstream of Ten Mi1 e Islandis characterized by an irregular meander patternand occasional islands andbars. The substrateis general ly sandand gravel . The rivernarrows to a singlechannel in this reach. The GreatBear River, which enters this reach just below Fort Norman, bringsin only smal 1 quantities of gravel to the Mackenzie, becausethe suspended load of the Great Bear is low(Renewable Resources ConsultingServices Ltd. 1978). Thecold, clear water from does notreadily mix with the warm, turbidwater of th Mackenize River; infact completemixi ng does not occur for 500 km downstream (Mackay1972). This is a reach of light to moderatedeposition.

The river downstream of Ten MileIs1 and, withinthis map area, is characterizedby an expansive,weakly entrenched, straight channel incorporating numerous riveris1 andsand bars. This reach of theriver appears to be more unstablethan the reach upstream of Ten MileIs1 and. 0301-34288 Page A9

Banks aregenerally high andbank erosion is evident in many locations. The flowalong this reachvaries from a low of 70,500 cfs,to a high of ~~~,oO~Cfs (2,000 m3/sec to 25,500m3/sec) during the summer; natural suspendedsediment concentrations range from 300 mg/l to 8,000 mg/l (RenewableResources Consulting Services Ltd. 1978). Records from Water Survey Canadaof (1985)indicate that the maxirnum dailydischarge at Norman Wells id 30,300m3/sec (1975 Play 24) and the minimum daily discharge is 1,950 m3/sec (1979 December 26).

Brunskill et al. (1975)estimated the average annual mass ofsuspended sediments at Norman Wells to be about 101,000,000 metrictonnes/yr. and the annual mass of sediments per unit area of watershed was estimated at 64.5 metric tonnes/km2/yr. This compares with 621,000 metrictonnes/yr. and 0.64 metrictonnes/km2/yr. at Fort Providencefor the same observation period .-1971 to 1974.In general,the Mackenzie Riverincreased its sedimentload and its dissolvedmineral content in its course downstream. The sedimentload is acquired mainly from rivers from the west; forthe tributarystreams on theeast carry a low sediment load. The dissolved mineralcontent is acquiredmainly by effluentgroundwater seepage to the river and to its tributaries. Campbell et a1 . (1975)reported a range of concentration of total suspended sediment at Norman Wells of 3.5 to 1,800 g/m3 with quartz, colomi te,calcite, chlorite, illite, and plagioclasepresent in samples collected from 1971 to 1974.

Weighted averages for dissolvedsolids in Mackenzie Riverwaters at Morman We1 1saveraged 173 ppm and variedseasonally in a narrow range between 162 and 176 ppm. On a higher, intermediate and low discharge-basedevaluation it is shown that during periods of high dischargethe river carried more totaldissolved solids per unit volume than during periods of low discharge. During periodsof low discharge, river watersare characterized by increasedcontents of Na and C1, and during periods of high discharge by increasedcontents of Ca and HCO3. Amounts of NO3 and 0301-34288 Page A10

possibly K and Mg increasewith lowered discharge. These phenomena are attributed to the varied and relative contributions of groundwaterinflow, surfacerunoff and lakestorage. In periodsof low flow on theMackenzie River,Great Slave and Great Bear lakes contribute possible 75 to 80 percentof total discharge, evidence of thesignificant of lakestorage (Levi nson et a1 1969).

The MackenzieRiver inthe Norman We1 1sarea (km 905) isexceptionally wide (5.6 km) and ischaracterized bynumerous islands andshoal areas. The materials on theriver bed at Norman We1 1 s aremainly 1 to 4 m of mediumsand withgravel occurring 1oca1 ly overcaly, bedrock or til 1. The alluvialcover is not continuous (Esso Resources Canada Ltd. 1980).

The river downstream of Ogilvie Island is in a region of flowto moderate erosionalpotential. Deposition hasbeen moderate to heavy resultingin extensiveis1 anddevelopment. Bars are conti nual ly in a state of flux as si1ts andsands constantlyredistribute themselves. Vegetation has stabi 1ized the majority of the islands and river banks (Fox 1979).

Onlyone suspended sediment station (NO. 10KA001; Lat. 65 16 54,Long. 126 50 580) islocated in this map area. The datawere gathered by Davies (1974)between June 5 andOctober 11, 1973(seven individual depth integratedsamples) during which suspended sediment concentration ranged from 3.5 to 1,800 mg/l in the MackenzieRiver at Norman We1 1s, with daily rates of transport of total suspendedsediment from the Mackenzie River, 20 km downstream of Norman Ne1 1 s, fordetermination ofchemical composition.

A.10 NTS MAP 106-H (KM 975 TO KM 1060)

TheMackenzie River from Axel Island (km 1005) tothe north end of this map area is characterized by shoals, 1ateral channels and . The 0301-34288 Page All

river has an irregularwidth, occasional is1 ands,and severalbedrock controlsthat result in rapids. The MountainRiver enters from the west, just upstreain from the Sands Saul t Rapids (km 10171, and brings sandand gravelinto this reach. Much ofthe material is transportedthrough the rapids and deposited on is1ands and bars downstream. The MackenzieRiver becomes widerand exhibits more spl itti ng aroundbars and is1ands from some distance downstream of theMountain River mouth. The relative instabilityof the reach is probably due to theexcess of coarse sediment brought down theMountain River and through Sans Saul t Rapids. The slope ofthe Mackenzie River below the rapids is throughto be increasing slowly asthe deposition at the upstream end ofthis reach continues (Renewable Resources ConsultingServices Ltd. 1978).

Erosion is severealong the west bank ofthe MackenzieRiver, opposite SnafuCreek, where slopes are moderate and have undergone severe sloping and gullying. The MountainRiver Val 1ey has a1 so undergoneextensive slumping,depositing large quantities of sediment into the Mackenzie.

Over thepast 25 yearsbars have shiftedsubstantially but island growth hasbeen minimal in the stretch downstream fromthe Sans Saul t Rapids(Fox 1979). A1 1 is1ands withinthis map areaare near present stream level, consist of silt, sandand gravel,and are subject to periodic flooding (Lombard North Group Ltd. 1974).

The Sans SaultRapids are considered the most difficult anddangerous section of theMackenzie River to navigate. The rapidsare formed by a rockyledge that extends into midstream from the east bank. At high stagesthey are drowned out by theturbulent, swift-running river. At low stagesthe rapids are shallow and lessturbulent with water depths in the orderof 1.2 to 2.4 my butcontain numerous eddieswith currents between 1.5 and 2.0 m/sec (CanadianMarine Transportation Administration 1972). Flashfloods on theMountain River havebeen known to jamthe Mackenzie River with debris at Sans Saul t Rapids. 0301-34288 Page A12

Boulders and cobblesoccur downstream of the Sans Sault Rapids along both sides of the river. The shores of Dummit Island (km 1025) are composed of boulders and cobble with largeisolated patches of sand and gravel on some she1 tered beaches (Renewable Resources Consulting Ltd. 1978).

Suspended sediments in this stretch of the Mackenzie Riverare not well documented but are through to be simi 1 ar to those at Norman Wells (300 mg/l to 8,000 mg/l). The only deviation from this might be thewater alongthe south shore below theconfluence of Mountain River. In Autumn, water from the Mountain River is much less turbid than that froln the Mackenzie River, and theclear water from the Mountain Riverextends for a considerable downstream (Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd. 1978 1.

Horizontal growth rate anof islandbeside an active channel in the Mackenzie Rivernear Sans Saul t Rapids was estimated by Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. (1982) as 6.6 m/yr. within a range from 1.8 to 13.5 m/yr. for six sites sampled on the Liard andMackenzie Rivers. Variation in sedimentationrate is due tolocation, rate of deposit and rate of plant invasion.

A.ll NTS MAP 106-1 (KM 1060 TO KM 1195)

Upstreamof The Ramparts (km 1087 to km 10971, the Mackenzie River is characterized by a wide channel with numerous sand bars. The width of the rivervaries considerably and banks are undergoing erosion at some locations. The instability of this reach is probably due to theexcess of coarse sediment ( sand and gravel which is brought down the Mountain River and through Sans Saul t Rapids to be deposited in this area.

On this map area,the portion of the Mackenzie River upstream of the Loon River (km 1130) forms a highly complex reach.Erosion is moderate to 0301-34288 Page A13

heavy along most river banks. Channel deposition is moderate to heavy throughout this reach. Silt and silty-sands havebeen depositedalong the river channel, forming a network of islands and bars.Vegetation creates a temporary stabilizi ng force on many of theis1 ands (Fox 1979). Spruce Island and thelarge un named island just upstream are above present floodplainlevel s and are composed of gravel , sand and si 1 t. Other islandsin the area are subject to periodicflooding (Lombard North Group Ltd. 1974).

Based on the Water Survey of Canada records from Norman Wells,the followingdischarges were projectedfor The Ramparts segment of the Mackenzie River: mean discharge, 14,400 m3/sec; highestdischarge recorded 28,600 d/sec; lowestdischarge recorded, 6,100 m3/sec; mean October discharge, 9,700 m3/sec; discharge exceed on October 12 in 90 percent of years, 8,100 m3/sec (NorthwestHydraulic Consultants Ltd. 1982).

From the Loon River mouth to thenorthwest edge of this map areathe northeastside of the Mackenzie River is dominated by steep-terraced slopes.Deposition is moderate to heavy in this reach.Is1 ands and bars consisting of si1t and si1 ty sands have accumulated in the river channels. Bar shiftingis quite evident in some places which vegetation has, at 1 east temporarily, stabil ized other bars (Fox 1979).

At The Ramparts, theriver is straight, entrenched and confined by high limestonecliffs. Bed material is bedrock and boulders. Flows range from 2,000 m3/sec to 25,500 rn3/sec but waterlevel changes are predominantly controlled by ice jams that form through The Ramparts (Renewable resources Consul ti ng Services L td. 1978).

There are no mai nstem sedimentsurvey stations 1 ocated in this map area. 0301-34288 Page A14

A.12 NTS MAP 106-5 (KM 1195 TO KM 12351

Moderateto heavy deposition of sandsand si1 tsalong the Mackenzie River in this map areahas resulted in numerousbars and islands which show some evidenceof erosion. The OntaratueRiver (km 1200) iscurrently a major sourceofsediment. historically, the southwest bank ofthe Mackenzie Riveris thought to haveprovided substantial amounts ofsediment because it is composed of weak shale overl ai n by a veneer of si1 t and si1 ty-sand. Thesouthwest bank, however, was degraded a considerabletime agoand vegetationis well established. The northwestbank is much steeperand composed of more resistantrocks (Fox 1979). The onlyarea of relatively unstableriver bankson this map area is a short segment on bothsides of theOntaratue River, about 6 km upstreamfrom the mouth of the river (Dirschl 1975).

Thereare no mainstern sediment survey stations located in this map area.

A.13 NTS MAP 106-0 (KM 1235 TO KM 1355)

River banks withinthe upstream third of the Mackenzie River in this map areavary from gentle to moderate slopes. Mass movement, inthe form of flows,has occurred inglaciolacustri ne depositsthat overl iethe resistantsandstones on thenortheast bank. Where recentdeposits are thin,banks are more stable and we1 1 wooded. Si1ts andsi1 ty-sands have accumulated inthe river channelforming frequent bars and is1 ands (Fox 1979).

Depositionis light to moderate inthe downstreamtwo thirdsofthe Mackenzi e River in this map area. Mu1 tiple retrogressive lands1 ides along 0301-34298 Page A15

the Thunder River (km 1299) and the unnamed tributary o theeast side of the Thunder River about 2 km upstream from the Mackenzie Riversupply, supply the Mackenzie with large amounts of sediment. The banks of the Mackenzie showsome evidence of erosion a1 ong the north bank, west of the Travaillant River mouth (km 1327) (Fox 1979).

A.14NTS MAP 106-N (KM 1355 TO KM 1470)

The reach of the Mackenzie River from theeast,. n edge of this map area to about Pierre Creek (km 1424) is in a region of moderate deposition resulting in both island and bar formation. The river banks and bluffs have undergone considerable gul lyi ng, ri 11 erosion and 1andsl ides. Terraces are we1 1 devel oped in a variety of recent deposited (Fox 1979)

Turbidity increases from Fort Providence to Wrigley, declines slightly at NormanWe1 1 s then rises again upsteam of theconfluence with theArctic Red River. This reflectsthe input of essentiallylake water to the Mackenzie River from Great Bear River upstream of Norman Wells and the accumulation of dissolved and suspended material from numerous tributaries and groundwater sources a1 ong the main river channel. The turbiditytrend highlights theimportant role of Great BearLake as asediment settling basin in the Mackenzie drai nage network (Glater Quality Branch 1983).

From data gathered by the Water Survey of Canada at Sediment Survey Station 10LA003 for theyears 1973 to 1979 inclusive, mean monthly suspendedsediment concentrations were calculated by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority (1980) as fol lows, expressed in mg/l with ranges in parantheses: Jan. 0.7 (0-3); Feb. 0.9 (0-3); Mar. 0; Apr. 0.4(0-3); May 631(85-1303); June 716 (409-1001); July 489 (246-781); Aug. 243 (83-765); Sept. 89 (46-151); Oct. 38 (14-16); Nov. 12(0-48); Dec. 0.7 (0-3). For this sedimentsurvey station,estimates of annual sedimentloads (megatonnes) 0301-34288 Page A16

forthe years 1973 through 1979 were 97.4, 138.5, 155.4, 111.7, 101.6, 55.1 and 105.1, respectively.Sediment are carried almost entirely in the ice-free season (May toOctober inclusive) with insignificant alnounts in winter(Hardy Associates (1978) Ltd. 1982).

Using 1982 data as an example, thehighest daily mean concentrationof suspendedsediments recorded at sedimentsurvey station 10LA003 was 723 mg/l on 1982 June 24 at whichtime daily discharge was 25,000 m3/sec and dailyload was 1,560,000 metrictonnes/day. Inthat year, daily loads averaged 953,000 tonnes in June, 231,000 inJuly, 455,000 in August, 122,000 in Septemberand 27,700 in October,with no values shown forthe other sevenmonths of theyear (Water Survey of Canada 1984).

Suspended load composi tionof the MackenzieRiver at Arctic Red River is 12 percent sand, 60 percent silt and 28 percentclay, a significant change from thetypically 20 percentfine sand, 55 percentsilt and 25 percent claycontributed by theLiard atits junction with the Mackenzie. Sediments that form pointbars and islands on themain river stem are predominantlyfine sandand silt (HardyAssociates (1978) Ltd. 1982)

The highsediment load of the Mackenzie River, in theorder of 1,000 mgll (RenewableResources Consulting Services Ltd. 19781, is also significantly influenced by sedimentderived from west-sidetributaries that issue from theMackenzie Mountains onto the Mackenzie P1 ain. Verylarge deposits of glaciofluvialgravel are associated with major me1 twaterchannels where

the Mackenzie P1 ain meets the Mackenzie mountains (Hughes et a1 . 1973).

A.14.1 MainstemSediment Survey Stations on this Map

1. Station No. 10LC003; Lat. 67 45 25, Long 133 51 25; manual sampling, seasonaloperation 1973, manual sampl ing,miscellaneous data only in 1974; dataare not published for this sediment survey station. 0301-34288 Page A17

2. Station No. 10LA003; Lat. 67 21 30, Long. 133 30 30; manual sampling mi scel 1aneous data only in 1972 and1975; manualsampl ing, season operation in 1973 to 1974 and 1980 to 1982.

A.15 NTS MAP 106" (KM 1470 TO THE DELTA)

At PointSeparation the mean discharge of the Mackenzie Riverinto the delta is of theorder of 400,000 cfs (11,320rn3/sec). Annual flood peak at this point is estimated at 947,000 cfs (26,800m3/sec) or more than twice the mean discharge (Mackay 1967).Instantaneous flows as high as 76,450 m3/sec were associated with a compari tively mild ice jam in May 1975 but thepredicted daily discharge corresponding to a 100-yr.flood is 36,800 m3/sec (Hol 1 i ngshead and Rundqui st 1977 1.

The Mackenzie River atPoint Separation has a high potentialfor scour, primarily as a result of ice jammi ng, and because of fine-grained(sand) bed materialto great depth. bank erosionpotential is minor (Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd. 1979) but channelbanks are high enabling the devel opment of 1arger ice jams.

Data arescarce with respectto suspendedsediment concentrations. For the Mackenzie River above Arctic Red River, measured concentrations in the summer season have been mostly in the 100 to 1000 rng/l range. On 1974 August 12 a daily extremeof 9640 mg/l was recorded, with theriver discharge at 28,000m3/sec giving a daily suspendedsediment yield of 23.3 milliontonnes. Concentrations have been observed declineto below 100 mg/l by the end ofSeptember and remain low until 1 the next spring fl ood (Hegi nbottom 1978). 0301-34288

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF FISHERIES INFORMATION FOR REACH ZONES MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: I (0 - 25.75 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: GreatSlave Lake to west side of Big Island M AJOR TRIBUTARIES:MAJOR None

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fa? 1, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively

Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Burbot Humpback Whitefish NorthernPike Round Whitefish Ye1 1 ow Wall eye Inconnu Longnose Sucker HABITAT USES:

FISHING AREAS: Domestic fishingin the Great Slave Lake outletharvest whitefish spp.,primarily while sport fishermen target lake trout, Arctic grayling, northernpike and yellowwalleye (McCart and Den Beste, 1979).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: The river in this reach has been described as a straight channel bearing no tributarystreams. Probably functionsas a migratory route for species movingbetween the Mackenziemainstem and GreatSlave Lake. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: I1 (25.75 - 60 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: West side of Big Island to west- side of Beaver Lake MAJORTRIBUTARIES:

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall and spring spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Humpback Whitefish Northern Pike Round Whitefish Ye1 1ow Wall eye Inconnu Longnose Sucker HABITAT USES: Kakisa River - Spring runs includingArctic grayling, northern pike, yellow walleye and longnose suckers, spawn in theriver and it is probable that fa1 1 spawners migratevia this watercourse (McCart et al., 1974). "

FISHING AREAS: Primarily humpback whitefishare caught domestically within thearea defined by the reachboundaries. In addition, sport fishermen concentrate alongthe Mackenziemainstem to catch mainly grayling,pike and yellowwalleye (McCart and Den Beste, 1979). Excellentgrayling catches have also been reported in the KakisaRiver below the rapids (Hatfiel d et a1 , 1972b). ".

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Potentialconcerns have yetto be identified, althoughintensive domestic and sportsfishing in thearea suggest that migrations will be a probableconcern. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: I1 I (60 - 107 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Beaver Lake to and Mills Lake MAJORTRIBUTARIES: Horn River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall and spring spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Humpback Whi tef i sh Northern Pike Round Whi tef i sh Ye1 low Wall eye Inconnu Longnose Sucker HABITAT USES:

FISHING AREAS:

Whitefish spp., northernpike, yellow walleye and suckerscatches havebeen reported by localresidents (Fort Providence) at the mouth of the Horn River (Hatfield ”et al., 1972b).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Mainstem definedas braided with sand and gravelthroughout, and couldinclude spawning and rearinghabitats. Probablyprovides a migrationroute during fish movements. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: IV (107 - 130 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Horn River and Mills Lake to west end of Mills Lake MAJORTRIBUTARIES: None

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1ing Humpback Whi tefi sh Northern Pike Round Whi tef i sh Ye1 1 ow Wall eye Inconnu Longnose Sucker HABITAT USES:

FISHING AREAS: Possible domestic fishing locations for Fort Providence residents.

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: V (130 - 228.5 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Westend of Mills Lake to west of Trout River MAJORTRIBUTARIES: Trout River (including Trout Lake) RedknifeRiver Bouvier River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Burbot

Lake Cisco ' PikeNorthern Arctic Cisco Ye1 1ow Mal 1eye Humpback Whitefish Longnose Sucker Round Whitefish I nconnu HABITAT USES: Trout River - Spawning and nurseryareas are for presentArctic grayling, northernpike, ye1 low walleye and longnosesuckers (McCart et a1 , 1974; ". Dryden et a1 1973).Possible overwintering areas (McCartandMcCart, "., 1982). Summer feedingareas for grayling, pike and longnosesuckers and occasionally juvenile cisco and whitefish spp. (McCart "et a1 ., 1974). RedknifeRiver - Rearing grounds occur at tributary mouth and large backeddies

(Stein "et al., 1973). Bouvier River - Nursery stream forArctic grayling (Jessop and Lilley, 1975). FISHING AREAS: Domestic fishermen harvestwhitefish spp. (humpbackand round) during migration at tributary mouths e.g.Trout River (McCart and Den Beste, 1979) and a1 so whitefish spp., pike and suckers in Trout Lake (DIAND/MPS, 1973). Sportfishing is also common in theseareas, concentrating mainly on pike, grayling, and walleye (McCartand Den Beste, 1979).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Spring spawning movements into the Trout River. Summermovements of fry and juveniles from Trout, Redknife and Bouvier rivers. Fall spawners moving through the mainstem. Domestic fishery at Trout River. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: VI (228.5 - 300 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: West of Trout River to east of RabbitskinRiver

Major TRIBUTARIES: Jean-Marie Creek SpencerRiver

MAJORSPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively.

Lake Cisco Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Humpback Whi tefi sh Northern Pike Broad Whitefish Yel 1ow Wall eye Mountain Whitefish Longnose Sucker HABITAT USES: Jean-Marie Creek - Migration routefor spring runs of Arcticgrayling, northernpike,, yel 1 ow wall eye and suckers in the 1 ower reaches and a strong possibility of grayling and walleye spawning at the mouth. A fall run of whitefish has al so been observed (Dryden et al ., 1973). Possible fal 1 spawning of whitefish and cisco spp. (McCart andMcCart 1982). SpencerRiver - A spawning and nurseryriver for Arctic grayling, northern pike and longnose suckers. Summer feeding also occurs (McCart "et a1.,1974). FISHING AREAS: Domestic fishingtakes place from spring through to fall at the mouth of the Jean-Marie Creekwhere thecreek enters the Mackenziemainstem (Dryden etal., 1973).Whitefish spp., pike and suckersare harvested (DIAND/MPS, 1973)

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS:

Migrationroute through the Mackenziemainstem for spring and fall spawners accessingJean-Marie Creek and SpencerRiver. Importantdomestic fishery at the mouth ofJean-Marie Creek. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: VII (300 - 410 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: East of RabbitskinRiver to east of Burnt Island MAJORTRIBUTARIES: RabbitskinRiver Bluefish Creek Liard River HarrisRiver Martin River Trai 1 River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively.

Lake Trout Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Arctic Cisco Northern Pike Humpback Whitefish Yel 1 ow Wall eye Broad Whitefish Longnose Sucker Round Whitefish Mountain Whitefish Inconnu HABITAT USES: MackenzieMainstem - Humpback whitefish,Arctic grayling, northern pike and longnosesuckers were identifiedas the most abundant speciescaught in the Mackenziemainstem in earlierstudies (Stein et al., 1973; Jessop and Lilley, 1975). Emigration of whitefish,Arctic grayllng 7-and longnosesucker fry from tributary streams to the Mackenziemainstem observed during June and July

(Jessop "et al., 1974). RabbitskinRiver - Fall spawning mountain whitefish,spring spawning grayling, pike and walleye and possiblyburbot (winter spawner) utilize this watercourse to spawn. Nursery areafor humpback whitefish, inconnu, grayling,northern pike and longnosesuckers (McCart et al., 1974).Overwintering potential (McCart, 1974). Summer feeding grouniis for walleye(Jessop et al 1974) and "., likelyother species (McCart et al., 1974). " Bluefish Creek - Suspected spawning forArctic grayling and northernpike. Nursery grounds forgrayling (McCart etal., 1974).Cisco spp. and humpback whitefishfry observed moving out ofthe creek in earlyJuly fol lowed by

Arctic grayling in mid-July to early August (Jessop "et al., 1974).

Liard River - Major migratory route for many species (McCart "et al .,1974). Harris River - Grayling,pike, longnose sucker and possiblywalleye spawning occurs in thespring. As well,nursery areas are present in thestream for humpback and broad whitefish,northern pike and longnosesuckers (McCart -et -al ., 1974).Possible overwintering in theriver (McCart, 1974). MartinRiver - Spawning areafor Arctic grayling (Stein et al., 1973). " Trail River - Possibility that fall spawning species(e.g. whitefish and cisco spp.) and summer feedersutilize the river. Overwintering is suspected (McCartand McCart, 1982).Arctic grayl ing have moved into thestream under theice early in May in preparationfor spawning and havebeen observed moving upstream as far as the Harris Riverfollowing spawning (Jessop et al., 1974). " FISHING AREAS: Whitefish spp., northernpike and longnosesuckers are caught for domesticuse along the Mackenziemainstem in theFort Simpson area (DIAND/MPS, 1973).Significant sport fishing takes place in theFort Simpson area and upstream on the Liard River particularlyfor Arctic grayling, pike and walleye (McCartand Den Beste, 1979).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Mackenzie mainstem in thearea as well as the Liard River function as major migrationroutes for spring, fall and winter spawners to a number of tributary streams in thearea. Fry move into the mainstem in the summer (June to August). Importantdomestic and sportfishery in thevicinity of Fort Simpson.

. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: VIII (410 - 520 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: East of Burnt Island to north of WillowlakeRiver MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: WillowlakeRiver Root River Nahanni River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawnersgrouped, respectively.

Lake Cisco Lake Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Humpback WhitefishNorthernPike Round Whitefish Yel l ow wal l eye Mountain Whitefish Inconnu

HABITAT USES: WillowlakeRiver - Spawning area for spring runs of Arcticgrayling, northern pike and longnose suckers (McCart et al ., 1974). Suspectedspawning for fall runs of whitefish and cisco spp.and-possible overwintering grounds (McCart and McCart, 1982). Summer feeding area for lake cisco, humpback whitefish, northern pike, walleye, longnosesucker and burbot (McCart et al ., 1974). " FISHING AREAS: Whitefish spp., inconnu, northern pike and suckers are harvested domestically at the mouth of WillowlakeRiver (Jessop and Lilley, 1975).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Domestic fishing at the mouth of Willowlake River. Spring and fal l spawnersmoving through the McGern Island area into WillowlakeRiver and possibly Root River. Braided riversections including a number of islands,indicate potentialfish spawning and/or rearinghabitat, however past surveys in the area are lacking. MACKENZIERIVER REACH ZONE: IX (520 - 580 km) GEOGRAPHICLOCATION: North of Willowlake River to Wrigley River MAJORTRIBUTARIES: River Between Two Mountains Smith Creek Hodgson Creek Wri gl ey River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively.

Lake Trout Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Humpback Whi tef i sh Northern Pike Round Whitefish Yel l ow Wall eye Mountain Whitefish Longnose Sucker I nconnu

HABITAT USES: River Between Two Mountains - ImportantArctic grayling and round whitefish spawning and moderatelongnose sucker spawning existsas well as a migratory routefor a number of spawners.Nursery areasfor mountain whitefish and longnosesucker and important rearinghabitat for grayling and round whitefish arepresent. The riveralso provides summer feedingfor round whitefish, grayling and pike.Overwinter conditions are suitable (McCart et al.,1974; McCart, 1974; McCartand McCart, 1982). " Smith Creek - Possessespotential for spawning, rearing, Summer feeding and overwintering areas (McCart "et al., 1974). Hodgson Creek - Identifiedas grayling overwintering area and possiblyother species (McCart et al ., 1974; McCartand McCart, 1982). Spawning grounds for round whitefish ,grzling and l ongnose suckers and nursery areas for longnose suckers and possiblyArctic grayling as well. Grayling, northern pike and longnosesuckers rear and summer feed in the stream (McCart et al ., 1974). " FISHING AREAS: Arcticgrayling are fished for sport near the mouth ofRiver Between Two Mountains (Dryden et al 1973).Whitefish spp., northern pike and "., longnosesuckers are caught for domesticpurposes near thesettlement of Wrigley (McCartand Den Beste, 1979; DIAND/MPS, 1973).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Domestic fishery within thevicinity of Wrigley e.g. Wrigley River and River Between Two Mountains. Spring and fall migrations to spawning areas.Adult and juvenile fish move through the mainstem tooverwintering areas. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: X (580 - 664.5 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Wrigley River to BlackwaterRiver MAJORTRIBUTARIES: Ochre River JohnsonRiver Noname Creek Elackwater River

MAJORSPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively.

Humpback Whitefish Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Round Whitefish Northern Pike I nconnu Yel 1ow Wall eye Longnose Sucker

HABITAT USES: Ochre River - Littleoverwintering potential although longnosesuckers caught in open waterarea (McCart andMcCart, 1982). Noname Creek - Spawning, rearing and summer feedingfor grayling and suspected spawning for Prosopium species (McCart etal., 1974).Possible overwintering areafor some species (McCart and McCart,1982). BlackwaterRiver - Migratoryroute as well as spawning and rearing grounds for Arcticgrayling (McCart etal., 1974) and possiblyutilized by fall spawning species(e.g. whitefish andcisco species)(McCart andMcCart, 1982). Summer feedersinclude Arctic grayling and longnosesuckers (McCart et a1 1974). ”., Good overwinteringpotential because of good flow and well oxygenated water (McCart and McCart, 1982).

FISHING AREAS:

Domestic fishingfor whitefish spp., northernpike and longnose suckersoccurs downstream of Wrigley (McCart’ and Den Beste; 1979; DIAND/MPS, 1973).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Domestic fishingat the BlackwaterRiver mouth. Migrationroute for spring and fall spawners and possibly burbot. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XI (604.5 - 714 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: BlackwaterRiver to Redstone River

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: DahadinniRiver Birch Island Creek SalineRiver Reds tone Ri ver

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawnersgrouped, respectively.

Humpback Whi tefi sh Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Round Whi tefi sh NorthernPike Inconnu Longnose Sucker

HABITAT USES: BirchIsland Creek - Spawning, rearing and summer feedingfor Arctic grayling (McCart et al.,1974). Suspected Arctic grayling overwintering area (McCart, 1974). "

SalineRiver - Rearing, summer feeding,overwintering and incidentalspawning areasfor Proso ium spp., Arctic grayl ing and longnosesuckers (McCart et al ., " 1974; McCart,

FISHING AREAS:

Specificareas unknown atthis time. No settlementsoccur within the immediate vicinity of reach. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Domestic fishingareas unknown.

Fish movements to spawningstreams during spring and fall.

Possiblespawning and rearing habitat near mainstem islands. (Probably a minorconcern since the reach isrelatively uniform and a singl e channel (. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XIl (714 - 828 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Redstone River to Great Bear River MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: Keel e River Little Smith Creek Big Smith Creek

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawnersgrouped, respectively.

Dolly Varden Char Arctic Grayl ing Burbot Arctic Cisco Northern Pike Least Cisco Yel l ow Wall eye Humpback Whi tef i sh Longnose Sucker Broad Whitefish Round Whi tef i sh Mountain Whitefish Inconnu

HABITAT USES: Little Smith Creek - Spawning area for spring runs of grayl ing, wall eye, l ongnose suckers, winter run burbot and possibly fall spawning round whi tefi sh. Summer feeding grounds for Dolly Varden char, round whitefish, grayl ing, pike and longnose suckers. Nursery areasare also Dresent (McCart

"et al , 1974). No overwintering potential (Micart and McCart, 1982). Big Smith Creek - Spawning areafor Arctic grayl ing and also summer feeding areafor grayling and pike (McCart -et al., 1974). Limited overwintering potential (McCart and McCart, 1982). Barxer to upstream migration about 4 miles from the creek mouth (Dryden et al , 1973) ".

FISHING AREAS:

Mainly cisco spp., whitefishspp., inconnu and Arcticgrayling are caught by local fishermen from Fort Norman although otherspecies including pike, burbot, walleye and sucker spp. comprise thecatches (DIAND/MPS, 1973; Unpublished data fromMacLaren Plansearch).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Local domestic fishingsites along the mainstem.

Mainstem use during summer by juveniles and adultsenroute to overwintering areas.

A number of islands within Reach XII may offer spawning and/or rearing potential. I4ACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XI11 (828 - 965.7 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: GreatBear River to Patricia Island

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: GreatBear River He1 ava Creek Little BearRiver FrancisCreek Slater River Canyon Creek Bluefish Creek Stewart Creek JungleRidge Creek BosworthCreek NotaCreek Billy Creek Vermi lion Creek OscarCreek Prohibition Creek Ell iot Creek

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring andwinter spawners grouped, respectively.

Dolly VardenChar ArcticGray1ing Burbot Lake Trout Northern PikeNorthern Trout Lake ArcticCisco Ye1 1ow eyeWall Least Cisco Longnose SuckerLongnose Cisco Least Humpback Whitefish Go1 deye BroadWhitefish Round Whitefish I nconnu

HABITAT USES:

MackenzieMainstem - Rearinghabitat reported for young-of-the-year and/or juvenilesalmonids (whitefish, cisco, inconnu and grayling),burbot, pike and walleyein gravel-cobble areas near Billy, Oscarand Elliotcreeks (Envirocon, 1981).

GreatBear River - Migratoryroute for populations of fall spawningruns of Arcticcisco, round whitefish, inconnu and spring runs of graylingand pike. Possiblespawning grounds for burbot and longnose sucker and suspected nursery forall of these species. Nursery for lake trout (Dryden et a1 ., 1973;McCart ”et al., 1974). Summer feeding for grayling (Chang-Kue and Cameron 1980). BluefishCreek - Nurseryarea for broad and/or round whitefish (McCart et a1 ., 1974).Important nursery and spawning areas for grayling (Stein et a1 ”.,797?). JungleRidge Creek - ImportantArctic grayling andmoderate longnose sucker spawning, rearing and summer feedingarea (McCart et al., 1974). ” NotaCreek - Majorgrayling spawning,rearing, summer feeding and migration route. Incidental longnose sucker summer feeding (McCart ”et a1 ., 1974). VermilionCreek - Moderatespawning and rearing ofgrayling and longnose suckersnear the mouth. Nursery stream toArctic cisco, humpback whitefish, broadwitefish, grayling and walleye. Summer feedingfor humpback, broadand round whitefish, inconnu, grayl ing, 1ongnose sucker and burbot (McCart et a1 , ”. 1974).Overwintering for Arctic grayl ing (McCart, 1974). Prohibition Creek - Moderate spawning and rearing for grayling. Nursery stream to humpback and/or broad whitefish. Summer feeding for thesethree species in addition to Arcticcisco, round whitefish,Arctic grayling and longnose suckers (McCart "et al., 1974).

Helava Creek - Summer feeding for grayling and pike (McCart "et al, 1974). Francis Creek - Arcticgrayling utilize the creek for spring spawning, rearing and summer feeding to a minor degree (McCart et a1 ., 1974). " Canyon Creek - Spawning and rearingarea for grayling. Summer feedingarea for gray1 ing and longnosesuckers (McCart et a1 , 1974). Possibleareas for ". overwintering (McCart, 1974). Stewart Creek - Migration routefor spring spawning Arcticgrayling to Three Day Lake (Steinet al., 1973; McCart etal., 1974). Post-spawning migration out of thestream occurs " either immeditately" after spawning or following summer feeding, moving upstream intoGreat Bear River (Steinet al, 1974; Jessop and Lilley,1975). " BosworthCreek - The creek mouth provides minor spawning and rearingfor grayling, longnosesuckers and burbot (McCart etal., 1974). Probable overwintering grounds (McCart, 1974). " Billy Creek - Spawning, rearing and overwintering grounds for northernpike (McCart et al., 1974). " Oscar Creek - Suspected migration routefor spring runs of Arcticgrayling, northernpike, .ye1 1 ow wall eye and 1ongnose suckers. Spawning, rearing and summer feeding grounds presentfor grayling and longnose suckers. Nursery area for whitefish spp. and possibleoverwintering grounds (McCart et a1 ., 1974; McCart, 1974). Walleye havebeen observed spawning in the creekin earlyJune, some remaining there to feed during the summer then movement out occurs in early September (Jessop et al., 1974). " Elliot Creek - Spawning and rearing grounds present in addition to summer feedingfor Arctic grayling (McCart et a1 ., 1974). Potentialoverwintering grounds (McCart, 1974). " FISHING AREAS:

Domestic fishingoccurs along theGreat Bear River and in the Mackenziemainstem near Fort Norman (Dryden etal., 1973; Unpublished data fromMacLaren Plansearch,1985). Themain speciescaught includelake trout, cisco spp., whitefish spp., inconnu and grayling (DIAND/MPS, 1973) although otherspecies including northern pike, yel low walleye, burbot and suckersare also taken (MacLaren Plansearchunpublished data, 1985). Domestic fishing occurs in thevicinity of Norman Wel 1 s forsimil ar catches (McCart and Den Beste, 1979; DIAND/MPS, 1973).Grayling are taken at the mouth of Stewart Creek duringspring and summer migrations(Jessop and Lilley, 1975). SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Primary fishresource area due to the many tributarystreams which offer spawning, nursery, summer feeding and potential overwintering habitats. Migrations at almost all times. (Probablymajora concern). Importantdomestic and sportfishing. Numerous islands in the channelsuggest potential spawningand rearinghabitats in mainstem. MACKENZIERIVER REACH ZONE: XIV (966 - 1017 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: PatriciaIsland to San Sault Rapids and Mountain River MAJORTRIBUTARIES: Mountain River CarcajouRiver

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively. Humpback whitefishArctic Gray1 ing Burbot Broad whitefish PikeNorthern Round whitefish Ye1 1 ow Mal 1 eye I nconnu HABITAT USES:

Both the Mountainand Carcajou riverscarry a high silt load and likely do notprovide important spawning or rearinghabitat, however, potential mainstem habitats have yet to be surveyed.

FISHING AREAS: Occurance of specificfishing sites is not known, althoughthe reach does not lie within an area immediate to any settlements.

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Potential spawning and rearinghabitat in braidedsections of the mai ns tern. Migrationroute via the mainstem to upstream tributariese.g. Great Bear River. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XV (1017 - 1086.5 km)

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: San SaultRapids and MountainRiver to the Ramparts

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: Hanna River Donne1ly River SnafuCreek Hume River TsintuRiver Ramparts River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawnersgrouped, respectively.

Arctic Cisco Arctic Gray1 ing Burbot Humpback Whi tefi sh NorthernPike Broad Whitefish Ye1 1ow Wall eye Round Whitefish Longnose Sucker Inconnu

HABITAT USES: Hanna River - Spawning, summer feeding and suspectedoverwintering for Arctic grayling and northern pike. Grayling nursery river (McCart "et al., 1974). DonnellyRiver - Arcticgrayling havebeen observed migratingupstream from theMackenzie mainstem inearly spring (i.e., beginning of May) andspawning inthe stream in late May toearly June(McCart and de Graff,1974). Grayling havebeen reportedto move out of theDonnelly River following spawning and upstream intothe Great Bear River (Jessop et al., 1974). Primary spawning andnursery areas for gray1 ing and longnosesuckers and probablefa7 1 spawning in 1ower reachesnear mouth forround whitefish and inconnu.Pike spawning occurs upstream in the Chick Lake outlet (McCart "et a1 ., 1974). SnafuCreek - Spawningand rearingfor Arctic grayling, northern pike and longnose suckers occurs in the stream (McCart"et a1 ., 1974). TsintuRiver - Spawningand rearingstream for Arctic grayling, northern pike, ye11 ow walleye and longnose suckers (McCart"et a1 ., 1974). FISHING AREAS:

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS:

Fishingareas not identified.

Movement ofspring spawningspecies between themainstem and tributary streams.Probable migration of anadromous fall spawningspecies to upstreamareas.

Braidedchannel andnumerous islandssuggest rearing and/or spawninghabitats. MACKENZIERIVER REACH ZONE: XVI (1086 - 1097.5 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The Ramparts MA JOR TRIBUTARIES:MAJOR None

MAJORSPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively.

HABITAT USES:

Mackenzie mainstem - Due tothe high gradient and turbulentnature of the Ramparts, there is probably littlerelevant fish habitat in thearea, however, it is potentially utilized by most major species as a migration route. FISHING AREAS:

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Migrations. Possiblefishing for Fort GoodHope residents. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XVII (1097.5 - 1261 km) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Northend of Ramparts to north of Little Chicago MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: Hare IndianRiver Loon River TiedaRiver Ontaratue River P ayne C reek

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fa1 1 , spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Burbot Arctic Cisco NorthernPike Least Cisco Ye1 1ow Mal 1 eye Humpback Whitefish LongnoseSucker Broad Whitefish Round Whitefish I nconnu

HABITAT USES: Hare Indian River - Spawning and nursery areas are present of Arcticgrayling and 1 ongnose suckers. The river is a1 so serves as a migrating route, summer feeding location and overwintering grounds (McCart "et al., 1974). Loon River - Arcticgrayling, northern pike and longnose suckers spawn and rear in the river and it is suspected that whitefish and cisco spp. do as well

(McCart "et a1 ., 1974). Possible overwintering grounds (McCart, 1974). Tieda River - Arctic grayling and longnose suckers utilize spawning and rearingareas present in the river. Summer feeders include broad and round whitefish, northern pike and longnose suckers (McCart et a1 ., 1974). No overwintering potential (McCart, 1974). " PayneCreek - Spawning and rearing habitat for grayling (McCart et al., 1974). " FISHING AREAS:

Whitefish spp.,cisco spp., inconnu and lake troutare domestically fished near Fort Good Hope(McCart and Den Beste, 1979), in particular, at the mouth of the Hare Indian River during the summer and occasionally during winter (Jessop and Lilley, 1975).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Domestic fisheryfor the Fort Good Hope residents. Potential spawning and/or rearinghabitat inmainstem due to the presence of many islands in the channel. No past surveys. Migration timing of spring and fall spawners. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XVIII (1261 - 1437.9 krn) GEOGRAPHICLOCATION: North of Little Chicago to Lower Ramparts MAJORTRIBUTARIES: Thunder River Travai 11ant River TreeRiver Rabbit Hay River

MAJORSPECIES PRESENT: Fall, spring and winter spawners grouped, respectively. Lake Trout Arctic Gray1 ing Humpback Whi tefi sh NorthernPike Broad Whitefish Yellow Walleye Round Whi tef i sh Longnose Sucker

HABITAT USES:

Thunder River - Spawning runs to headwater lakes and nurseryareas are present for broad and round whitefish,lake trout and grayling (McCart et al., 1974). " Travaillant River - Spawning and rearingareas for longnosesuckers occur in theriver and possiblegrayl ing spawners (McCart etal., 1974). Conditions aresuitable for overwintering in the river (McCart,T9m. TreeRiver - The riversupports a good run of Arcticgrayl ing in theclear water(Hatfield et al. 1972a). " FISHING AREAS: Domestic fishing forwhitefish and cisco spp., Arcticchar, northern pike and suckersoccurs upstream of Arctic Red Rivernear the Tree and Thunder rivers (McCart and Den Beste, 1979; DIAND/MPS, 1973).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS: Primary fishmigration route. Domestic fishery. Braided nature of the channelsuggests potential spawning and/or rearing habitats. MACKENZIE RIVER REACH ZONE: XIX (1437.9 - 1475 km)

GEOGRAPHICLOCATION: LowerRamparts toPoint Separation

MAJOR TRIBUTARIES: Arctic Red River

MAJOR SPECIES PRESENT: Fall,spring and winter spawnersgrouped, respectively.

Arctic Char Arctic Gray1 ing Burbot Lake Trout Northern PikeNorthern Trout Lake ArcticCisco Ye1 1 ow eyeWall LeastLongnoseSucker Ci sco Humpback Whitefish Broad Whitefish Round Whitefish Inconnu

HABITAT USES:

Mackenziemainstem - Broad and humpback whitefishappear to spawn in back eddiesof the Mackenzie River near Arctic Red Riverin early October (Stein et -a1 . , 1973).Broad whitefish are thought to be more abundantthan humpbax whitefish in theDelta area (Stein et a1 ., 1973; Jessop and Lilley,1975). Emigrationof pike juveniles from Tributary streams inthe Arctic Red River areahas been observedmid-June to early July (Jessop etal., 1974). " Arctic Red River - Thissystem drains a number oftributary streams and large populations of many speciesoccur between the Mackenzie River delta (Aklavik) and theArctic Red Riverarea (Jessop and Lilley, 1975).Probable broad and humpback whitefish spawningoccurs atthe river mouthfrom late October to early November (Jessop et a1 1974). "., FISHING AREAS:

Intensefishing for whitefish spp., cisco spp., Arcticchar, northern pike and suckersoccurs inthe Arctic Red Riverarea by local residents for domesticpurposes (McCart and Den Beste, 1979; DIAND/MPS, 1979).

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS:

Majormigratory path for large populations offish present in theMackenzie Delta, Arctic Red River and Mackenziemainstem.

Some spawningdocumented inthe mainstem. - Importantdomestic fishing grounds. 0301-34288

APPENDIXC ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 0301-34288 Page C1

c .1 PROJECT TEAM

Severalspeci a1 i st subconsul tants were i nvolved in addressi ng various aspects of thestudy. These includedthe foll owing: a) ESL EnvironmentalSciences Ltd., Sidney,British Columbia: responsiblefor identification of environmental issuesrelating to dredging in theriver, including fisheries, water-qual ity and hydro1 ogy. b) GVM GeologicalConsultants Ltd., Calgary, A1 berta:assisted EBA with theevaluation of conventional borrow sources,the development of the geologic model to describethe location and distribution ofa1 1uvi a1 materials, and theclassification of thepotential of variousreaches of theriver c) Hydrocon Engineering(Continental Ltd., Calgary,Alberta: assisted EBA and ESL with theevaluation of thehydrologic regime of various reaches of the river, and theassessment of the characteristics of theriver

At EBA, Mr. N.R. MacLeodwas theproject manager and preparedthe section pertaining to Norman Wells. Mr. A.F. Stirbyscontributed significantly to theevaluation of upland borrow resources andeconomic considerations. Severalothers including Mr. T.E. Hoeve,from EBA's Calgary office and Mr. B.A. Brown from EBA's Edmonton officealso particiapted in thetechnical aspects of theproject.

c.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In completing this assignment many people representing a numberof private and government agencies havebeen contactedto provide data, knowledge or 0301-34288 Page C2

advice.Their assistance has been appreciated. Some of the major contributors are 1 i sted bel ow.

ESSO Resources Canada Ltd.: Ron Tibbatts,Steve Hunter, CathyNelson, Sanjay Shinde, David James, Cal Sikstrom Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Gerry Kowalchuk,Nick Galan IPL Pipelines Ltd. : William Pierce PeBen Construction: CharlesIvan, Gene Carson Institute of Sedimentary And Petroleum Geology: Owen Hughes Transport Canada: El mer Shul tz Pub1 i c Works Canada: Carl Urtech, Harry Jacobs, Bob Smith, John Piard Geoterrex: Rick Quinn Beaver Dredging (Canada) Ltd: John Wari ng Western EcologicalServices Ltd.: Everett Peterson Mike Miles and Associates Ltd.: Mike Miles Freshwater Institute: J.Stien Government Northwest Territories: SandyMurray, JimBentley, Peter Morris Northern Transportation Company: Ken Simpson Gulf Canada Corporation Ltd.: Dave Watson, DaveTownsend Canadian Coast Guard: Ozzi e I sf eld